The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-08-14 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 two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission Regular Meeting Agenda: August 14, 2019 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.Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 There are no Study Session items. Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2.PUBLIC HEARING. 1310 Bryant Street, 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street: Planning and Transportation Commission Review of and Receipt of Public Comments on a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Prepared for the Castilleja School Project. The Draft EIR was Published on July 17, 2019 for a 60-day Initial Public Comment Period Ending September 16, 2019. File #s: 16PLN-00234, 17PLN-00238, and 19PLN-00116. For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 3.June 12, 2019 Draft PTC Meeting MinutesDraft Meeting Minutes Staff PowerPoint Consultant PowerPoint Public Slides 1 Public PowerPoints Public Slides 2 At-Place Memo _______________________ 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 two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Committee Items Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Agenda Items Adjournment _______________________ 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 two minutes or less 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 William Riggs Vice Chair Michael Alcheck Commissioner Ed Lauing Commissioner Giselle Roohparvar Commissioner Doria Summa Commissioner Carolyn Templeton Commissioner Asher Waldfogel 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 # 10533) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 8/14/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments From: Jonathan Lait 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: August 14, 2019 PTC Meeting Schedule and Assignments (DOCX) Draft Planning & Transportation Commission 2019 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2019 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/30/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/13/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/27/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 3/4/2019 11:00AM Community Meeting Room Special 3/13/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Roohparvar 3/27/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/10/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/24/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 5/08/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs 5/29/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 6/12/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 6/26/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 7/10/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 7/31/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 8/14/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 8/28/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/11/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/25/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/09/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/30/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/13/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/11/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2019 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Doria Summa Asher Waldfogel Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Giselle Roohparvar Doria Summa July August September October November December Giselle Roohparvar Doria Summa Asher Waldfogel Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Asher Waldfogel Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Giselle Roohparvar Draft Planning & Transportation Commission 2019 Tentative Future Agenda August 7, 2019 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics August 28, 2019 • 470 Olive Ave: Non-conforming Use Exception • 874 Boyce: Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions September 11, 2019 • 788-796 San Antonio Mixed-Use Project To Be Scheduled: Topics Co-Working Office Model SB 50 Data Briefing Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 9692) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/14/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 1310 Bryant, 1235 and 1263 Emerson: Castilleja School Project DEIR Title: PUBLIC HEARING. 1310 Bryant Street, 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street: Planning and Transportation Commission Review of and Receipt of Public Comments on a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Prepared for the Castilleja School Project. The Draft EIR was Published on July 17, 2019 for a 60-day Initial Public Comment Period Ending September 16, 2019. File #s: 16PLN-00234, 17PLN-00238, and 19PLN-00116. For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) conduct a public hearing to: 1. Receive and provide public comments on the Castilleja School Project draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Executive Summary The Castilleja School Foundation has requested approval of the following applications: • an amendment to the school’s existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to expand student enrollment; • Architectural Review of a phased campus modification plan (referred to by the applicant as the Master Plan); • a Tentative Map with Exception to merge two small parcels containing dwelling units with a third, larger parcel, where the resulting lot would exceed the allowable lot area within the R-1 Zone District; City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 • a Variance to allow for the underground parking garage to encroach into a special setback along Embarcadero Road; and • a Variance to maintain and reconfigure (rebuild) 84,124 square feet of gross floor area on the existing campus parcel, where only 81,385 square feet of such area is allowed under current code. The City of Palo Alto, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has released a draft EIR (see Attachment E) for the subject project. In accordance with CEQA, the EIR describes the project and its potential environmental impacts. The EIR also identifies mitigation measures to address impacts and evaluates alternatives to the proposed project. The draft EIR identifies three ‘significant and unavoidable environmental impacts’ that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. This report discusses these impacts. The project is under review for compliance with applicable plans and regulations. Therefore, this report does not include a formal evaluation of the project’s consistency with the municipal code or a recommendation on the project. The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the PTC and members of the public an opportunity to comment on the draft EIR. The final EIR will address comments received during the public comment period. Public hearings in the fall will allow the public to comment on the project specifically. The PTC will have an opportunity to consider public comments, deliberate on the project, and make recommendations to the City Council. Background Castilleja School is a private educational facility providing education to middle and high school girls. The current campus, established more than a century ago, is located within a single family (R-1 10,000 zone) neighborhood. A location map showing the project site and nearby zoning districts is included in Attachment A. The City first issued a CUP to Castilleja School in 1960, and there have been seven amendments since. In 1992, the campus size increased through the City’s abandonment of Melville Avenue and approval of a Tentative Map, which merged two parcels. In 2006, the City approved the most recent CUP amendment and an Architectural Review permit, allowing replacement of the gym with a new gym containing a basement. Between 1960 and 2006, the City issued CUPs in 1965, 1974, 1979, 1992s, 1995 and 2000: • Requiring efforts to “minimize traffic and prevent on-street parking congestion” (1974) • Enabling a chapel addition, requiring 52 parking spaces, designating student pick-up and delivery areas, and requiring compliance with prior CUP conditions (1979) • Allowing the school to resume a sixth grade program, use the abandoned Melville Avenue area, construct a 28-space parking lot, establish a softball field, and begin a Transportation Demand Management program (1992 CUP) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 • Facilitating a dorm conversion into academic uses, capping enrollment at 385 students (154 middle and 231 high school), and requiring an amendment to increase enrollment beyond 385 (1995) • Allowing a 415-student cap, subject to implementation of a TDM program (2000) • Enabling a new gym replacing existing floor area above grade, and adding restrictions on the gym’s use (2006) The City has also issued many temporary use permits for large events over several decades. In 2013, the City learned the school was operating in violation of the CUP student enrollment cap. Through an agreement with the City, Castilleja School began reducing its enrollment by four students a year, to bring the school into compliance over time. For the fall 2019 term, Castilleja School will have 430 students (15 students above the cap of 415 students). Project Description The proposed project increases the maximum enrollment cap and redevelops portions of the campus under a phased development plan1. The phased construction would remove five campus buildings and an existing pool (located at grade) and replace them with the following: • an academic building • a below-grade parking structure • a new below grade (outdoor) pool with sound wall • below-grade delivery and trash enclosures/waste pick-up • a reconstructed Circle in the center of the campus The phased campus plan increases the campus size and open space on the project site, including an approximately 0.33-acre space that neighbors could use. Chapter 3 of the draft EIR expands on the project objectives and description. Attachment F provides links to the plans. Castilleja School requests incremental student enrollment increases following construction phases. Castilleja School seeks to add approximately 27 students annually over a three-year period. The applicant proposes a Transportation Demand Management plan, which would limit student car trips with a goal of no net new peak hour trips. Project Development Phase One The first phase includes demolition of two residential structures located at 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street (Lockey/Alumnae house and a rental house, respectively). This phase would 1 Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.76, Section 18.76.020 item g: “(g) Phased Projects and Enforcement of Approval Conditions: An application for a phased project may be submitted and a specific development schedule may be considered and approved. In no event, however, shall such a development schedule exceed five years from the original date of approval. Approved project plans and conditions of approval imposed through the architectural review process shall be enforceable as approved unless the application is revised or withdrawn in accordance with this title.” City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 also include the subterranean garage construction in the current location of Spieker Field. This phase is associated with an enrollment increase to 490 students. The applicant would not reconstruct the demolished residential floor area. The underground garage would include a single-lane ingress ramp from the parking lot on Bryant Street. Plans show a single-lane egress onto Emerson in the approximate location of the existing Lockey/Alumnae house at 1235 Emerson. Drivers would be required to turn right on Emerson Street and then right onto Embarcadero Road upon exiting the garage. The applicant requests a Variance to allow the underground garage to extend into the Embarcadero Road special setback. The proposal reduces above grade parking, but provides more total parking spaces than are required in accordance with the Zoning Code. The underground garage would also include a below-grade pedestrian tunnel beneath an existing utilities easement. The tunnel would allow pedestrian passage from the garage to an elevator and stairs between the theater and fitness center. The applicant proposes a second garage access staircase near the Emerson Street exit ramp. Phase 1 development includes tree removals, tree retentions, and tree relocations, as shown in plans and arborist documents and noted in the Draft EIR. Project Development Phases 2 through 4 The second through fourth phases of the plan are associated with requested student enrollment cap increases to 520 and 540 students, per the proposed CUP. Phase 2 includes the demolition of the Fine Arts building and adjacent parking lot. Phase 2 also includes construction of a below-grade pool replacing a parking lot between the athletic center and Emerson Street. Phase 3 establishes on-site temporary school facilities (two-story modular buildings) on top of the subterranean garage (aka Spieker Field site). The temporary campus (Phase 3) would allow operations to continue during the construction of Phase 4 development. Phase 4 begins with the demolition of five buildings on the current campus parcel and the at- grade pool. Phase 4 is the replacement of above-grade, gross floor area on the current campus parcel into a new academic building. The five campus buildings to be demolished include the Fine Arts building, Arrillaga Family Campus Center, Middle School Classroom/Rhoades Hall, a maintenance building, and the existing pool. The applicant proposes to retain the gym, the historic chapel, and administration buildings. Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview The EIR identifies significant and unavoidable impacts from the proposed Project. Because a statement of overriding considerations would be required, the Planning Director will refer action on all project entitlement applications to the City Council (per PAMC Section 18.31.010). Prior to a City Council hearing, however, staff will present the project entitlement applications to the ARB and PTC for recommendations. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The applicant requests the following discretionary applications. None of the following applications is the subject of this agenda item, which focuses solely on the draft EIR. • Tentative Map with Exception (File No. 17PLN-00234): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC Title 21 and California Government Code 66474. PAMC Section 21.12.100 requires the processing of a merger in the same manner as a subdivision. PAMC Section 21.12.090 outlines the process for approval of a Tentative Map for a subdivision. The PTC reviews whether the subdivision (or in this case, merger) complies and is consistent with regulations. The regulations are the Subdivision Map Act (in particular Government Code 66474), PAMC Title 21 and other Titles, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and State Law. Staff then forwards the PTC’s recommendation to the City Council for final approval. The applicant requests an exception to allow the resulting lot area to exceed the maximum lot area allowed under the R-1 Zone District. In accordance with PAMC 21.32, City Council may grant exceptions after recommendation by the PTC, if Council can make the required findings for approval. If the Council is unable to make any one finding, the Council can require project redesign or deny the application. • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) amendment (File No. 16PLN-00238): A CUP is required for a private educational facility in the Single-family Residential Zone District. There is an existing CUP for the school. The applicant requests an increase in the total enrollment allowed under the existing CUP and an expansion in the site area for school use. PAMC Section 18.76.010(b)(3) requires a CUP for “any expansion in the building site or site area”. PAMC Section 18.76.010 (b)(2) notes “denial of an application for amendment does not constitute a revocation of the original CUP.” The Council will evaluate the CUP amendment against specific findings set forth in PAMC 18.76.010. The Council must be able to make all findings to approve the project. If Council is unable to make any one finding, the Council may require project redesign or deny the application. • Major Architectural Review (File Nos. 16PLN-00238 and 19PLN-00116): The Major Architectural Review (AR) process is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. The ARB reviews major AR applications, which the ARB and staff evaluate against specific review standards and findings. If the Council is unable to make any one finding, the Council can require project redesign or deny the application. Because historic structures are located on and adjacent to the subject property, the HRB will also review the AR application and provide a recommendation to Council on the proposed project. • Variance (File No. 17PLN-00238): The applicant requests two Variances as follows: (1) for the proposed garage encroachment into a Special setback, and (2) to replace existing gross floor area. Current project floor area exceeds the amount allowed in the R- 1(10,000) zone district. The applicant proposes to demolish and rebuild floor area in a different configuration on the existing campus parcel. The Council will evaluate the Variance requests against specific findings set forth in PAMC 18.76.030. If Council is City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 unable to make any one finding, Council can require project redesign or deny the application. Several of these applications and project components will be the subject of a future PTC hearing. At that time, the PTC will be able to review the findings that would be necessary for the City Council to take action on a final EIR and the project. Summary of Draft Environmental Impact Report The draft EIR Executive Summary (Chapter 1) provides an overview of the project objectives, phases, impacts, mitigation measures, application types, and alternatives. Chapter 1 lists ‘areas of known controversy and issues raised’, which followed the City’s 2017 circulation of the Notice of Preparation. The 139 letters and verbal public comments regarding the EIR scope and analysis are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. A Chapter 1 table summarizes ‘resource’ or topic areas and associated mitigation measures noted in the EIR and the Initial Study. Topics with mitigation measures are in a table on pages 1- 11 through 1-28. The topics with no mitigation measures are on pages 1-29 through 1-35. • The nine topics with mitigation measures are Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Land Use, Noise, Transportation, Biological Resources, Geology, Hazards, and Air Quality. The City addressed Biological Resources and Hazards during the 2017 Initial Study scoping process and identified associated mitigation measures for these topics. The City determined no further analysis was required. The draft EIR incorporates the earlier analysis and mitigation measures by reference. • Six topics have no impacts or mitigation measures: Water/Hydrology, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems. The draft EIR Introduction (Chapter 2) will help the public to understand the EIR’s purpose, use and process. The draft EIR Chapter 3 describes the project and: • conveys the applicant’s project objectives; • identifies potential environmental impacts in multiple topic areas; • provides recommended measures designed to mitigate most of these impacts; • notes three significant and unavoidable impacts related to traffic that do not have mitigation measures. The draft EIR Chapters 4 – 12 addresses the nine topic areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology, Soils, Seismicity and Paleontological Resources, Land Use, Noise, and Transportation and Circulation. The draft EIR sources include technical studies and other documents, as well as recently revised plans and map. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Chapter 13 outlines project alternatives. The draft EIR Additional CEQA Analysis (chapter 14) helps readers become oriented to terminology surrounding ‘Significance’. Chapter 14 also describes topic areas where there are no environmental impacts and where there are environmental impacts, including the Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. Project Alternatives The draft EIR identifies three alternatives to the Project: the ‘No Project’ alternative, ‘Moderate Enrollment Increase’, and ‘Moderate Enrollment Increase with Reduced Parking’. Both of the latter alternatives promote a smaller enrollment cap of 506 students. The reduced parking alternative would limit the size of the proposed underground parking garage to 52 parking spaces. Analysis The City’s analysis of the project’s impacts under CEQA and proposed mitigation measures are contained within the draft EIR. As noted, the draft EIR discusses nine topics associated with impacts and mitigation measures. Of these nine topics, five topics have a high level of community interest: Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Land Use, Noise, and Transportation. Aesthetics and Cultural Resources Castilleja School is located within a single-family residential neighborhood (R-1 [10,000]) with larger residential parcels, given that 10,000 square feet is the minimum lot size. The Aesthetics and Cultural Resources chapters address neighborhood character and the Project Description chapter includes discussion about tree removals, transplants and replacements. Draft EIR Chapter 5, Aesthetics, includes one mitigation measure (5a) addressing potential lighting impacts. Following this hearing and following staff’s review of a complete application for Architectural Review, the ARB will have the opportunity to review the aesthetics of the project, including lighting, site plan functionality, and new structures. Draft EIR Chapter 6, Cultural Resources, addresses the historical context and campus modifications. There are two mitigation measures designed to protect Cultural Resources. The HRB will review the plans and new building against the City standards and findings related to historic preservation and aesthetics. Several chapters in the draft EIR address tree preservation, removal, and relocation. There are many mature trees on the Castilleja campus and in the neighborhood. The Land Use and Planning Chapter 4 contains Table 4-4 that clarifies tree disposition and contains a full discussion. 2 2 The City approved the applicant’s Blue Atlas Cedar removal request (Architectural Review file 19PLN-00206 and see the project webpage). The City’s Urban Forester concurred with the City’s outside arborist’s assessment that the tree was in very poor condition. The replacement tree will be a Blue Atlas Cedar in the same location; the proposed new building footprint respects the tree location. Additionally, the City will plant 11 more trees near the campus using the applicant’s contribution into the Forestry Fund. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Land Use and Planning Draft EIR Chapter 4, Land Use and Planning, addresses the Project’s potential impacts on Land Use. The chapter references seven mitigation measures: • on-site special events (measure 4a) • trees (measure 4b) • transportation issues (measures 7a, 7b, 7c) • noise issues (measures 8a, 8b) The Land Use chapter identified impact 4-2, land use incompatibility, as a significant and unavoidable impact. This is due to the increase in average daily traffic on a residential street, specifically along the portion of Emerson Street between the proposed garage exit driveway and Embarcadero Road. The traffic associated with the proposed project on this roadway would cause this segment to exceed the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index. The impact results from the applicant’s proposal to re-route all traffic circulation from the underground garage to a single exit and for all exiting vehicles to turn right. The City’s traffic consultant and staff considered and analyzed a mitigation measure to address this impact. However, since this mitigation would result in other new or more significant impacts, the DEIR does not include this mitigation. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The draft EIR sets forth the project’s consistency with the City’s planning policy documents. The draft EIR includes references to consistency as applicable to each topic area. Staff will provide further analysis of the project’s consistency with applicable plans and guidelines in future staff reports, in conjunction with a request for a formal recommendation. Zoning Compliance4 The draft EIR contains a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards. Through the requested Variances and Exception, the applicant seeks permission to deviate from certain code standards. The applicant provided letters describing proposed justifications for these code exceptions. The processes for Exceptions and Variances are set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and staff will present a discussion on the findings for these code exceptions as appropriate at a future PTC hearing. Noise (and Vibration) Draft EIR Chapter 8, Noise, identified several impacts requiring mitigation, and some measures include further analysis, documentation and adjustment. The noise impacts relate to: • Event noise at the circle and pool (measure 4a is to restrict special events and measure 8a is to require additional documentation) • Loudspeaker noise (measure 8a is to require documentation) 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 4 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 9 • Temporary and periodic noise increases from construction (measures 4a, 8a and 8b; 8b is to require a technical noise level analysis with recommended additional measures) • Demolition vibration affecting the historic chapel (mitigation measure 6a is to require a protection plan) • Excessive construction noise from heavy equipment (measure 8b is to require noise reduction measures and restrictions relating to equipment type, number used, locations, shielding, barriers, etc.) Transportation The project site is located on the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard, and the major arterial Embarcadero Road. The CUP application includes a sustainability plan, bicycle parking plan and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. The applicant is preparing a bicycle and pedestrian circulation plan, to complete the Architectural Review application and ensure adequate, safe circulation for bicyclists and pedestrians. The plan will indicate how the school will prioritize active forms of transportation, and will describe access and parking. Draft EIR Chapter 7, Transportation, identified two significant and unavoidable impacts in the Transportation topic area: (1) The draft EIR notes the project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The Impact 7-2 notes that the project would exceed the acceptable average daily traffic volume under the TIRE index. (2) The draft EIR notes the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact under Impact 7-7. The project would contribute to a cumulative increase in traffic, conflicting with adopted policies and plans related to intersection and roadway segment function. The consideration includes Level of Service (LOS) and Average Daily Trips (ADT). Specifically, under the cumulative plus project scenario, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on level of service at the Kingsley/Alma intersection. Parking One Project alternative includes reducing the number of parking spaces provided on the site. The Project currently exceeds the parking required in the City’s parking standard for private education facilities. Other Topics A number of other topics are of interest to the public, the City, and Castilleja School. The draft EIR discusses many issues and topics. Some topics may not have an associated CEQA impact and other topics may not be the subject of the draft EIR. These topics may be the subject of future meetings; these topics include, but are not limited to these items: • Size, frequency and intensity of school-related events • Logistics plan for dirt hauling and concrete used for garage construction City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 • School operations during construction • Tree transplanting concerns • Bike safety and traffic on bike boulevard • Use of tandem parking spaces (more spaces provided than required by code) • Campus size5 and concern regarding project objectives • Loss of housing units • Neighborhood compatibility/Zoning • Open space design • Small size of campus used for integrated (middle and high) school Environmental Review The City has assessed the Project 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 draft EIR identifies potentially significant environmental impacts in the following issue area topics: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology, Soils, Seismicity and Paleontological Resources, Land Use, Noise, and Transportation. In addition, the Initial Study circulated in 2017 determined that impacts in the following topic areas were would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated: Biological Resources, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The draft EIR incorporates these impacts and associated mitigation measures by reference. As discussed above, the proposed project would result in three significant and unavoidable impacts related to land use and transportation. Therefore, in order to certify the EIR, the City Council would be required to adopt findings of overriding considerations for the project. 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. The Daily Post published the notice of a public hearing for this project on July 15, which is 30 days in advance of the Commission meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 17, which is 28 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments The EIR Scoping Report, which captures public comments on the Project’s Initial Study and EIR Scope, is viewable here: http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58246. The City’s 5 The campus currently exceeds the maximum 19,999 square feet within the R-1(10,000) zone district. The proposed campus expansion would result in a parcel that further exceeds the maximum lot size. The City established the maximum lot size in the R-1 zone so that new lots would not exceed twice the minimum lot size. The development standards for the R-1(10,000) zone also include a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for single-family residential development. The existing rental home parcel is currently smaller than the minimum lot size of the R-1(10,000) zone. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 consultant considered the comments in the Scoping Report during the EIR preparation. The City Council received the Scoping Report in its June 19, 2017 packet. The Commission public meeting in March 2017 clarified the environmental review scope for the Project and allowed public comments. The Commission report of 2017 included a primer on the CEQA process; it is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55782. The Initial Study prepared and circulated in 2017 “scoped out” several topics, as described in the draft EIR Chapter 14. To date, the public has submitted a number of comments in response to the draft EIR. Public comments are included in Attachment D to this report. Commissioners will receive a separate memorandum containing any additional written comments received after staff report publication. The public may view public comments provided prior to the publication of the draft EIR on the City’s webpage for the Project; the draft EIR considered these older comments. Public Access to Draft EIR for Public Comments The draft EIR and appendices, viewable at www.cityofpaloalto.org/castilleja beginning July 17, 2019, are available in CD-ROMs at the County of Santa Clara, State Clearinghouse, and Palo Alto’s City Hall floor 5. Members of the public have access to the Draft EIR in hardcopies at the Downtown Library, Development Center, and City Hall floor 5. Commissioners received hardcopies and CD-ROMs. The County-stamped paperwork reflecting the July 17 filing of the Notice of Availability (NOA) is attached (Attachment B). On July 15, the Daily Post published the Notice of Availability (Attachment C). On July 17, the Palo Alto Weekly published an online article with a link to the Draft EIR. Notice cards, mailed to neighbors near the Project site, announced the draft EIR release and hearing dates. Staff provided NOAs to the Commission, ARB, HRB, planning staff of neighboring cities, and others. The draft EIR public comment period will run through September 16, for a 60-day period, which exceeds the 45-day requirement for an EIR comment period. Next Steps On September 12, 2019, the HRB will receive comments on the draft EIR during the second public meeting on the draft EIR. After the HRB meeting and in conjunction with the end of the public comment period, staff will prepare and publish a public hearing schedule for the Project. In addition to seeking the HRB’s comments on the draft EIR on September 12, 2019, staff will seek the HRB’s feedback on the proximity and compatibility of new Project features to older and listed historic resources on the existing Castilleja campus and adjacent properties. Following the circulation period of the draft EIR and staff’s review of a complete application, the project will return to the PTC and ARB for formal recommendations on the proposed project. Following the public hearings with the PTC, HRB, and ARB, the City Council will have an opportunity to consider the subject project. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 Report Author & Contact Information PTC6 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jonathan Lait, AICP, Director (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2679 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (DOCX) • Attachment B: County stamped form July 17, 2019 CEQA Doc Declaration (PDF) • Attachment C: Notice of Availability Castilleja DEIR (PDF) • Attachment D: Comments on DEIR Received Through August 7, 2019 (PDF) • Attachment E: Draft EIR and Appendices (Commissioners received hardcopies of the Draft EIR and CDs) (DOCX) • Attachment F: Project Plans on Building Eye (Hardcopy Provided to Commissioners) (DOCX) 6 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Location Map – Castilleja School Santa Clara County -Clerk-Recorder Office State of California County of Santa Clara File Number:ENV22299OfficeoftheCountyClerk-Recorder ENVIRONMENTAL FILINGBusinessDivisionNo.of Pages:3 Total Fees:$0.00CountyGovernmentCenterFileDate:07/17/2019 70 West Hedthng Street,F.Ving,V Floor Expires:09/15/2019 San Jose,California 95110 (408)299-5688 REGINA ALCOMENDRAS,Clerk-Recorder CEQA DOCUMENT DECLARATION By:Nina Khamphilath,Deputy Clerk-Recorder ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE RECEIPT PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: 1.LEAD AGENCY:City of Palo Alto 2.PROJECT TITLE:Castilleja School Project 3.APPLICANTNAME:Castilleja School Foundation PHONE:650-328-3160 4.APPLICANT ADDRESS:1310 Bryant Street,1235 and 1263 Emerson Street,Palo Alto,CA 94301 5.PROJECT APPLICANT IS A:D Local PublIc Agency School DIstrIct Other Special District D State Agency Private EntIty 6.NOTICE TO BE POSTED FOR 60 DAYS. 7.CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT a.PROJECTS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO DFG FEES 1.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PUBLIC RESOURCES CPDE §21152)$3,271.00 $0.00 Q 2.NEGATIVE DECLARATtON (PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE §21080(C)$2,354.75 $0.00 0 3.APPLICATION FEE WATER DIVERSION (StATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ONLY)$850.00 $0.00 4.PROJECTS SUBJECT TO CERTIFIED REGULATORY PROGRAMS $1,112.00 $0.00 0 5.COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE (REQUIRED FOR a-i THROUGH a4 ABOVE)$50.00 $0.00 Fish &Game Code §711.4(e) b.PROJECTS THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM DFG FEES 0 1.NOTICE OF EXEMPTION ($50.00 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE REQUIRED)$50.00 $0.00 Q 2.A COMPLETED ‘CEQA FILING FEE NO EFFECT DETERMINATION FORM”FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH &GAME,DOCUMENTING THE DFG’S DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON FISH,WILDLIFE AND HABITAT,OR AN OFFICIAL,DATED RECEiPT I PROOF OF PAYMENT SHOWING PREVIOUS PAYMENT OF THE DFG FILING FEE FOR THE *SAME PROJECT IS ATrACHED ($50.00 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE REQUIRED)- DOCUMENTTYPE:0 ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT 0 NEGATIVEDECLARATiON $50.00 $0.00 c.NOTICES THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO DFG FEES OR COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEES C NOTICE OF PREPARATION L1 NOTICE OF INTENT NO FEE $NO FEE 8.OTHER:Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report FEE (IFAPPLICABLE):S_____________ 9.TOTAL RECEIVED ..$0.00 *NOTE.SAME PROJECT MEANS NO CHANGES.IFTHE DOCUMENT SUBMITtED IS NOT THE SAME (OTHER THAN DATES),A “NO EFFECT DETERMiNATION”LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENTOF FISH AND GAME FOR THE SUBSEQUENT FILING DR THE APPROPRIATE FEES ARE REQUIRED. THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND ATTACHED TO THE FRONT OF ALL CEQA DOCUMENTS LISTED ABOVE IINCLUDIM3 COPIES) SUBMIUED FOR FILING.WE WILL NEED AN ORIGINAL (WET SIGNATURE)AND IWO (2)COPIES.1FTHEREARE ATTACHMENTS,PLEASE PROVIDE THREE (3)SETS OF ATTACHMENTS FOR SUBMISSION.(YOUR ORIGINAL WILL BE RETURNED TO YOUAT THE TIME OF FILING.) CHECKS FOR ALL FEES SHOULD BE MADE PAYABLE TO:SANTA CLARA COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER PLEASE NOTE:FEES ARE ANNUALLYADJUSTED (Fish &Game Code §711 .4(b)PLEASE CHECK WITH THIS OFFICE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FOR THE LATEST FEE INFORMATION. NO PROJECT SHALL BE OPERATIVE,VESTED,OR FINAL,NOR SHALL LOCAL GOVERNMENTPERM1TSFOR THE PROJECT BE VALID. UNTIL THEFILINGFEES REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTIONARE PAID.”Fish &Game Code §711 .4(c)f3) IFiAc PffnfitIu fl1fl1_fliQ From:Bill Schmarzo To:Castilleja Expansion; Planning Commission; Council, City; William Schmarzo Subject:Castilleja Student Lesson of the Day: Alternative Facts and Fake News Date:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 8:17:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Editor, the independently commissioned Environmental Impact Report concluded that the Castilleja expansion project would: 1. Cause significant andunavoidable traffic problems especially at key intersections and roadway segments. 2. Conflict with existing traffic- management systems that encourage students and staff to usealternate forms of transportation. 3. Create "significant and unavoidable" impact on "land use incompatibility or physically divide an established community.” 4. Increase neighborhood disturbance associated with special events, increasing traffic volumes in project vicinity and generating noise levels that exceed Municipal Code standards To counter this study, Castilleja commissioned their own non-independent study, paid their own researchers and created their own numbers to conclude: "The new project and increase in enrollment to 540 students wouldn’t increase rush hour traffic." Reminds of other non-independent studies done by: Big Tobacco to convince Americans that smoking cigarettes was safe Coal Industry to convince Americans that coal didn’t increase carbon levels (even created the lie of “clean coal”)NRA to convince Americans that guns don’t killBig Oil to convince Americans that oil is environmentally safe Castilleja is teaching their girls a very important lesson: if you don’t likethe facts, then lie to create your own alternative facts. Heck what’s next,promoting their expansion as “safe traffic”? Sincerely, Bill Schmarzo Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:JIM POPPY To:Planning Commission; Council, City; gsheyner@paweekly.com; editor@paweekly.com Subject:Commissioner Alcheck"s relationship with Castilleja CFO Date:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 5:08:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Commissioner Alcheck, It's well-known that you have a personal relationship with Kathy Layendecker, Castilleja's CFO. Can you truthfully state that your relationship will not influence your comments about the Castilleja DEIR? Will you provide for the record how many times you have discussed the project outside of formal meetings with the applicant? There is no benefit to the community for this project and I hope you can be impartial and take the proposed project on its demerits. Regards, Jim Poppy Melville Ave. Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:Jo Ann Mandinach To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Just say NO to the CASTI Expansion. In fact FINE them for their years of violations Date:Wednesday, August 7, 2019 10:04:22 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Have you been on Embarcadero recently? Have you seen the ludicrous gridlock that sends us miles out of our way?Why would you even consider letting Casti -- and/ort Standford -- make traffic evenworse? JUST SAY NO to more traffic. Casti's been in violation of its enrollment cap foryears; they shouldn't be rewarded for theirillegal conduct. Stop this assault on our quality of life or whatever little's left of it here. Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach Middlefield RoadPalo Alto, CA 94301 Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:Rob LevitskyTo:Planning Commission; Castilleja ExpansionCc:rob levitskySubject:missing biological resources section of DEIRDate:Tuesday, August 6, 2019 5:50:32 PMAttachments:image2.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ planning commisioners: Our group at PNQLnow.org did not see a Biological Resources section in the DEIR for the Castilleja proposal. This is in stark contrast to the Biological Resources section of the EIR for the Stanford Medical Center. This section is where the protected trees are discussed, and project alternatives are presented in order to minimize impacts on the protected trees. Stanford, for the Medical Center, chose the alternative that protected trees. However, in the ‘Notice of Availability’for the Castilleja project, biological resources are deemed ‘insignificant’and therefor not studied. This is rediculous, and PNQLNow.orgwill be asking for a full tree report in the DEIR, along with a list of Alternativesdesigned to minimize impacts to Protected trees. I hope you will support our efforts Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 to preserve and protect these important Palo Alto trees. rob levitskyemersonpnqlnow.org Sent from my iPhone Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:JIM POPPY To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Comments on Castilleja DEIR Chapter 7 - Transportation Date:Monday, August 5, 2019 4:47:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Planning Commission, Chapter 7 of the Castilleja DEIR does not mention the traffic flow that would result incars converging into a single entrance to the proposed underground garage. Current traffic patterns, with two drop-off points, one on Bryant and one on Kellog, allow for multiple ways of accessing the school, and those who live west of campus have many alternatives. Re-routing traffic patterns towards one entrance will not only cause traffic backups, but it will also endanger cyclists who use Bryant, which includes students at Paly and middle schools. The DEIR assumes that all motorists would use the drop-off on Bryant or go throughthe garage and exit onto Emerson. There is no mention of how backups and awkward traffic flows would result in motorists choosing to avoid the garage and drop off students on side streets, causing more danger to motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. And it also states that cars would need to clear the area within 14 seconds to avoidfurther backups. It may take 20-30 seconds or more to just get into the queue on Bryant! The DEIR must analyze traffic patterns that would result from this reduction of drop-off points to one single entrance. The omission of this analysis is very surprising and suggests that the DEIR is not portraying an accurate picture of how traffic would approach the garage. This glaring omission should require a completely new traffic analysis. It is outrageous and suggests a bias by Dudek in favor of the applicant. Regards, Jim Poppy Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 Melville Ave Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:Diana Darcy To:Planning Commission; Council, City; letters@paweekly.com; letters@padailypost.com Cc:Diana Darcy Subject:Don"t let Castilleja expand Date:Monday, August 5, 2019 3:43:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I am firmly against allowing Castilleja to expand. There is no clear benefit to our community from allowing an expansion of Castilleja. In fact, now that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is available, it is clear that expansion would instead cause many problems for Palo Alto, including increased traffic in an already congested area. It would be ridiculous to portray me as being against the "education of women" as Castilleja supporters have tried to say. Girls who live in Palo Alto have access to an outstanding public education at Paly where both my daughters have thrived, and Gunn is also an outstanding option. The 75% of Castilleja students from outside Palo Alto (and those within Palo Alto) have other options for spending excessive amounts of tuition dollars if they feel they must have a private girls-only education; Palo Alto has no obligation to support this school any more than we have so far. Castilleja is in a residential area, and they have flouted their enrollment limits for many years, causing traffic problems for their neighbors. They should be penalized, not rewarded for this behavior by an expansion. They have not stepped up to provide housing for teachers or any other real benefits to our community. Palo Alto should not support this proposal. Diana Darcy Harker Ave., Palo Alto ddarcy@stanfordalumni.org Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:JIM POPPY To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Why further divide the community over Castilleja? Date:Monday, August 5, 2019 7:44:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council and PTC, The Palo Alto Matters newsletter states it perfectly: The resulting potential to exacerbate existing land-use conflicts between the school and its residential neighborhood was deemed a further significant and unavoidable impact of the project that would “create land use incompatibility or physically divide an established community." Castilleja's plans provide no benefit to the community or neighborhood. Please fix this now and ask Castilleja to remove the garage from their plans and accept a smaller increase of enrollment. You are supposed to represent the tax-paying citizens of Palo Alto, not an elite institution that serves wealthy families outside of Palo Alto. You should have held astudy session to warn Castilleja about such an aggressive plan. Regards, Jim Poppy Melville Ave. Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:JIM POPPY To:Planning Commission; French, Amy Subject:Castilleja DEIR ignores traffic flow into garage Date:Monday, July 29, 2019 5:12:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear PTC, The Castilleja DEIR ignores the impractical traffic flow created by the proposedunderground garage. While the study finds that the egress of the garage will create significant and unavoidable impacts on Emerson, Melville, and Kingsley, there is no mention of how cars will enter the garage coming from two different directions on Bryant while cyclists are trying to use the street. And the DEIR does not address the fact that people will avoid the garage if the delay is significant. Drop-offs would take place on side streets in order to avoid lining up for entering the garage or drop-off area. An underground garage is old technology. As transportation evolves into driverless cars and other options, a garage would just be a lasting legacy to damaging the water table and to the disruption of traffic along Embarcadero and neighborhood streets. With the Stanford GUP and the electrification of Caltrain, any addition of unavoidable traffic snafus will only become greater as the years pass. Please RECOMMEND THAT THE GARAGE BE REMOVED FROM THE PLANS. Thank you, Jim Poppy Melville Ave. Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:Hank Sousa To:Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja DEIR Date:Thursday, August 1, 2019 10:05:40 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Commissioners: As we neighbors of the school make our way through the DEIR several areas of concern arise. One is the large number of trees slated for removal or relocation. In particular I want to bringyour attention to the 90' stand of redwoods behind the Lockey house and the rental home next door to it - both of which the school own. As you probably know both homes are slated to bedemolished to make way for the underground garage exit ramp. In addition it looks like four of the Redwood trees will be cut down and two will be moved to a nearby location. When I walk downtown I often walk down Embarcadero to cross at Bryant St. There is a niceview of the trees along Embarcadero and you can see they shade the batting cage area of the baseball field. They also provide a lovely backdrop to the two residences fronting Emerson.From what I have learned about transplanting trees that large is that they may live, but they won't thrive, and may have to be supported by guy wires. On my walks I also have seen Eichler "Atrium" homes built around heritage trees as well assidewalks that have been poured to accommodate large heritage tree trunks. In addition the City of Palo Alto's emblem/logo is a large redwood. It seems out of character for the City ofPalo Alto to give permission to Castilleja School to build an underground garage, demolishing housing and mature trees, that will change the look and feel of this block.. I bring this to yourattention so you can find the underground garage portion of the project out of scope with our neighborhood. Thank you,Hank Sousa Melville Ave. Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:Andie Reed To:Planning Commission; Castilleja Expansion; Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion Date:Monday, August 5, 2019 8:41:05 AM Attachments:Castilleja and Neighbors Perspectives - PNQL7-30-19.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. July 30, 2019 To: Planning and Transportation Commission From: PNQLnow.org, a grass-roots organization of neighbors living near Castilleja School(contact: info@PNQLnow.org) Dear Commissioners: We the neighbors of Castilleja are reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Reportprepared by Dudek and published July 17, 2019. The DEIR report quotes, in a few places, Castlilleja’s 8 Project Objectives. We, as residents who live next to the school 24/7 andlive with their impacts, provide you with what the school’s objectives mean to us. Black font is directly copied from pages 2 and 3 of Chapter 1 - Executive Summary of Dudek’s DEIR (Castilleja’s words). Blue font is the response from the residents’ perspective. 1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Castilleja School has set forth the following objectives for the project: 1.Maintain a single integrated campus for the middle and upper school in the current location, while providing new structures that integrate state-of-the-art technology and teaching practices and retain flexibility to adapt to unanticipated changes. Castilleja School is located on 6 acres of land in the heart of a R-1 residential neighborhood. The school’s objective of maintaining a single integrated campus is in stark contrast to the majority of private schools on the S.F. Peninsula with similar or greater acreage but have split their campuses so as not to be a burden to their neighbors and better accommodate their students (e.g. Keyes School, Pinewood Academy, Nueva School, Crystal Springs School, Harker Academy, St Francis School, The International School of Palo Alto). Two private schools that have maintained an integrated campus locally are located on substantial acreage in Atherton; Menlo School on 31 acres, Woodside Priory on 51 acres, and Sacred Heart School on 40 acres. 2. Achieve better architectural compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods through a well- articulated building and improve site aesthetics and harmony with the surroundingneighborhoods through enhanced landscaping. The adjacent neighborhoods are comprised of houses which have grown organically over the last 100 years. The design of the new buildings appears modern and industrial Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 compared to the eclectic architectural styles that surround the school, many of them decades old and historic. Tearing down existing houses and mature protected oaks and redwoods to be replaced by a garage structure is in no way harmonious or compatible with the neighborhood. 3.Increase enrollment to 540 students to allow more young women the unique opportunity to receive an all-girls education. Providing more young women the Castilleja education can be achieved many ways. This particular site is already densely populated (students per acre). The current CUP (approved in 2000) gave the school an 8% increase in enrollment (from 385 to 415) and our group (PNQL) would be ok with that percentage increase again, taking the school to 448 students. But the 30% request is simply too high; each extra student brings numerous peripheral additional drivers. The school has rejected the suggestion of splitting the campus. However, we have never heard the school explain why can’t they establish a “Castilleja II”, also serving grades 6 – 12, as other schools have done, elsewhere, where they can grow without limits. Many other schools have split their campuses or have multiple sites. 4. Increase on-site parking via an underground parking garage in order to reduce both parking visibility and surface parking spaces. The proposed garage would have a single entrance on the Bryant Bike Boulevard and a single exit onto Emerson at Melville. Instead of queuing up to enter an underground garage,drivers are more likely to drop off students on side streets, creating more traffic and danger to cyclists and pedestrians. Furthermore, the proposed garage would replace beautifulhouses to gain a net 61 parking spaces, which outweighs any upside of not seeing parked cars on campus. Build a garage and they will drive. The school should be encouragingshuttling and not driving to school. And driverless vehicles will soon be coming, making a garage even less important. 5. Improve vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access for students and staff through design efficiencies and a robust Transportation Demand Management Plan. We are in agreement that Palo Alto students should be encouraged to walk and bike to school. However, Palo Alto students only make up approximately 25% of the student body. When the school abides by their TDM, the neighbors generally don’t have many Castilleja students parking in front of their houses. If Castilleja wants to increase enrollment slightly, they could further expand their TDM by not allowing students to drive, using satellite pick-up and drop-off sites and shuttling, using only surface parking and not destroying the neighborhood with a commercial/industrial garage structure. 6. Ensure no increase in vehicle trips to and from the campus during AM and PM peak hours relative to recent (baseline) traffic volumes. Reduce the number of service deliveriesand relocate deliveries within the campus and below grade, to decrease nuisance effects to neighbors. We applaud the school’s plans to ensure no increase in vehicle trips during commute Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 times. Why do they need a garage if there are no additional trips? We don’t have a parking problem, we have a traffic problem. We agree with this goal, to not increase vehicle trips, and we would suggest decreasing the commute trips by expanding shuttle service to and from satellite pick-up and drop-off sites, requiring parents to utilize them, anddisallowing students to drive to school. Importantly, this goal does not address the many non-peak cars traveling into the neighborhood for school events. The number of events exceed by 10x the school’s current CUP events limits and need to be reduced to reasonable levels to allow neighbors quiet enjoyment of their evenings and weekends. 7. Improve the campus’s sustainability and energy efficiency by developing new facilities. Any improvement of the efficiency of operations has to take into account the energy costs of removing existing buildings, preparing the site, and all the new materials up to completion. For the garage, specifically, removal of 60,000 cu yds of dirt will require 6,000 dump truck loads and all the energy associated with the trucks and heavy equipment. The garage itself will be poured from concrete. The cement industry is the most energy- intensive of all manufacturing industries, and is one of the primary producers of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. Concrete causes damage to the most fertile layer of the earth, the topsoil, which contributes to surface run-off, which may cause soil erosion, water pollution, and flooding. Sustainability is not going to be improved by the use of so much concrete, as approximately one ton of CO2 is released for every one ton of concrete produced. 8. Phased development of the project to allow Castilleja School to continue to operate during construction and to reduce impacts on the neighborhood. It is difficult to understand how the school will operate during construction, as it would seriously detract from the children’s learning. The school’s attempt to reduce impacts is laudable. However, we disagree with the phased development claims. For one, once any increase in enrollment is approved, legally the school can enroll that number, so they may choose to revise their current plan of increasing over 4 or 5 years and just hike the enrollment by 30% when it is built. Secondly, tearing down homes to build an underground garage facility as the first phase and then offering to reduce the enrollment is too impactful is backwards and asks for exceptions ahead of proving they can abide by their enrollment number. If the school wishes to be a good neighbor, they should offer to modernize the school and plan for a modest increase in enrollment once traffic parameters are met. -- Andie Reed Melville Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:Tim Edmonds To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion Date:Friday, August 2, 2019 6:41:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Commissioners & Council Members, Please neither allow Castilleja to grow their enrollment, nor allow the school to expand thephysical plant at their current location. As a law abiding entity the school should be required to reduce their current enrollment to the number set in their original use permit. The only fair outcome, in the near term, for the residents of Palo Alto is for the school to beimmediately required to reduce the current enrollment of their campus to the number established by the original use permit. Only once the school is in full compliance should thematter of enrollment growth or physical expansion be entertained. As a just penalty, should anyone be interested in justice, the school would be required to maintain the originally agreed upon enrollment for as many years as they have been inviolation of the original conditional use agreement. At the end of that term the school could apply to expand enrollment and/or expand their facilities. If the school should choose to expand to a second site separate from their current location (egNueva or Pinewood), they should then be required to reduce the enrollment of the Bryant Street location which would give all students more space and provide remedy to theneighborhood surrounding the current (original) campus. Please do not continue to accept or reward Castilleja's poor behavior. Our city must require rules to have been followed prior to considering the requests of any person or organization. And, extra attention must be paid those who choose to ignore the current rules and then hide their violations from our residents and city government. Sincerely,Tim Edmonds Alma Street Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:Judy Grinberg To:Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja expansion Date:Saturday, August 3, 2019 1:58:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I strongly oppose the expansion. For All the reasons against it that you have heard before and because I understand that the expansion does not only benefit Palo Alto students. Judy Grinberg Middlefield Rd. 94301 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:Peter Costello To:Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja expansion Date:Tuesday, July 30, 2019 7:24:02 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I am a Palo Alto resident living less than one block from the Castilleja site, and have a daughter who graduated from Castilleja in 2011. While I am a strong supporter of Castilleja'smission, I also strongly oppose the school's expansion on a site that is already overcrowded. Castilleja has requested a renegotiation of the CUP enrollment cap from 415 to 540 students. This is an increase of 25%. I do not know Castilleja's employment, but there are currently 167employees with LinkedIn pages (https://www.linkedin.com/school/castilleja-school/). Assuming a 25% increase in staff, the load on the site would increase by at least 167 people(125 students and 42 staff). Castilleja's density is already significantly higher than comparably sized public schools in Palo Alto. From https://www.pausd.org/business-services/strong-schools-bond, there are links to a"Campus Profile" with acreage, enrollment and square footage numbers for Addison, Hays, Hoover, Nixon, and Palo Verde schools. I picked these five because there was no data on theothers. These sites range from 4.6 acres to 10.3 acres. Those five schools average 6.54 acres, have an average enrollment of 425, and have 43,671 square feet of buildings. Assuming 25teachers/staff per site, these elementary schools have about 450 students/staff per site. If Castilleja is able to annex the residential homes that it owns, its lot size will increase to 6.58acres. Currently, Castilleja already has 438 students (23 over-cap), and 167+ employees (per Linked-in), which totals 605 people. Increasing enrollment to 540 and increasing staffing by25% would put about 750 people on site during school hours. Castilleja also has significant traffic from sporting events, on-campus events, and summer-camps that the public elementaryschools lack. The planning commission and city council should reject an increase in Castilleja's enrollment. Castilleja's proposed project represents a huge increase in square footage. The Draft EIR andother documents submitted by Castilleja spin a narrative of "no increase in square footage". Paraphrasing page 1-3 of the DEIR Executive Summary, the proposal is to replace 6021sf plus84,572sf with 84,124sf of new construction. This narrative seems intentionally misleading; it refers to a calculation of lot coverage versus the actual construction. 1. The existing square footage to be demolished includes four spaces that artificially inflate the current square footage. These are 11,389 sf of attic space in the Arrillaga Center, and6021 sf from the homes at 1263 Emerson and 1235 Emerson (See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57672). The"at grade connection between library/arts and classroom wings" is also included (See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72447, DEIR Table 3-1, page 3-9). 2. Above grade classroom space will double from 42,000sf to 84,124sf (DEIR Table 3-1,page 3-9). 3. Below grade classroom space will triple from 14,726sf to 46,768sf (DEIR Table 3-1,page 3-9). Furthermore, it is my understanding that these classrooms are not really underground, but are technically only below street-grade, and will open onto a lowered Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 inner circle. Whether or not these classrooms count towards floor-area-ratio (FAR), theystill represent a major increase in the development density on the site. 4. The proposed garage adds a further 50,500sf of uncounted square footage. Acommercial garage entrance and exit are incompatible with residential zoning. Furthermore, the site water table is at 23-31 feet (DEIR, page 12-13). When theCastilleja gymnasium was constructed, pumps ran 24/7 for many months dumping significant amounts of groundwater into the storm drains.5. Total proposed square footage is 244,015 square-feet versus existing 166,231 sf (DEIR Table 3-1, page 3-9). This is an increase of 47%. Excluding the existing residences(6021sf), this is an increase of 52%. Excluding the existing attic (11389sf), this is an increase of 64%. Compared to Palo Alto's elementary schools, the proposeddevelopment is 5.6 times more dense (244015 / 43671sf) on comparable parcel-size. Castilleja is situated in the middle of a residential R-1 neighborhood. A lightly trafficked andlightly developed school is consistent with a residential neighborhood. However, Castilleja's proposal represents a major redevelopment that is more consistent with commercial zoning. Iam particularly triggered by Castilleja's insistence on including a parking garage in their plans, and then insisting that the neighbors have asked for it. I support great education, but Castillejashould not be granted an increase in enrollment, and their redevelopment proposals must be evaluated taking into account all of the proposed square footage - both above and below grade. Sincerely, Peter Costello Emerson Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:Paul Machado To:Planning Commission Subject:Castillejas Date:Thursday, July 25, 2019 9:53:03 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ While students at this school graduate and move on, the residents in the neighborhood will live the added congestion, the school plans will create, for the rest of their lives. It is time for Castillejas to expand to satellite campuses to fill their growing needs as other private schools in the area have done. Thank you Paul Machado Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:bill@thepowars.com To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Draft Castilleja EIR Date:Tuesday, July 30, 2019 3:25:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I am writing this note because I will be unable to attend the scheduled August 14 hearing regarding the draft EIR for Castilleja School's application for a new CUP as my wife and I will be traveling at that time. I have read portions of the draft report and I believe the commission should reject it asbeing deficient in assessing the impact of the school's proposal to increase enrollment, buildan underground garage and totally rebuild the academic buildings. Among the deficiencies Inoted are: 1. There is no estimate of the thousands of cubic feet of dirt that will be necessary to beremoved and disposed of to build the underground garage; nor is there any discussion ofwhere that dirt will be removed to (and the consequences of that "dumping"). There is nodiscussion of the number of truck loads that will be necessary to remove said dirt, theimpact on the surrounding streets and the location of a staging area for those trucks. 2. There is inadequate discussion of the air quality consequences of the removal of the dirtand the other construction. Although there are requirements to adopt procedures tominimize these impacts, as a resident during the construction of the undergroundgymnasium, I can attest to the fact that the air quality will deteriorate dramatically and formany days will be unbreathable. All local residences will have significant dirt residue andwill require both power washing of the walls and extensive cleaning of windows. 3. There is no discussion of the length of time necessary for the construction of the totalproject, the number of construction workers and their parking arrangements, the number oftruck deliveries during construction nor the plans for accommodating school sessions whilethe existing buildings are demolished and the new ones being built. There is no doubt thatthis multi-year project will lead to significant dislocations as construction equipment andsupplies are delivered and removed. Drivers routinely ignore impacts on the neighborswhich are likely to be significant given the limited "on campus" space for staging. When theschool rebuilt the oval several years ago, I was forced to miss a doctor's appointmentbecause my driveway was blocked for several hours when a large flatbed was picking up apiece of equipment and double parked on Emerson. When I asked the driver to move it so Icould get out of my driveway, he refused and responded that I should have moved my carto the street before work hours as I knew there was construction going on. When I calledthe school, I was told they had no control over the construction workers. 4. In looking at ongoing neighborhood impacts, the report should provide a comparison ofstudent density (number of students per acre or something similar) of the Castillejaproposal against other Bay Area private schools. It does not. There should be a discussionof restrictions imposed on evening and weekend events of these other schools. 5. In the discussion of alternatives, a detailed description of steps taken by other privateschools when faced with similar circumstances was missing. The report accepts withoutquestion the school's stated objective to have a single 6-12 campus. Other local privateschool's had similar objectives but eventually agreed to split campuses. The report shouldinclude an analysis of the impacts these other schools have experienced of having splitcampuses. In addition, there should be a comparison of measures of student density(students per acre or something similar) of the existing Castilleja allowed (not actual) and Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 proposed enrollments with other area private schools. This summary should be accompanied by an analysis of these other school's actual neighborhood impacts and ongoing neighborhood complaints. 6. The transportation analysis lacks any analysis of the impact of the proposal on theEmbarcadero corridor, other than an analysis of the small spur where westboundEmbarcadero traffic can turn right onto Alma. At peak commute times (including morningschool hours), traffic tends to back up from the Embarcadero/El Camino andEmbarcadero/Town&Country stop lights far beyond Emerson, sometimes to Waverley.school traffic is likely to have some added burden on Embarcadero but there seems to be nodiscussion of this. Since traffic coming from the proposed garage would exit onto Emersontoward Embarcadero and then turn right onto Embarcadero, there needs to be an analysisof the actual traffics patterns Eastbound on Embarcadero. In addition, although the postedspeed limit is 25 mph on Embarcadero, actual traffic flows are usually significantly fasterthan that. Since the visibility at the intersection is less than ideal, given the angle at whichEmbarcadero comes up the hill from the Alma/rail underpass, backups onto Emerson will bemore significant than as discussed in the report. 7. Also, the transportation section refers to the Emerson Embarcadero intersection as notbeing a pedestrian cross area. It is my understanding that California law defines anyintersection as a pedestrian crosswalk, even those without markings, unless there is a nocrossing posting. There is no such posting at this intersection. 8. There is no discussion of the fact that people routinely turn left from Emerson ontoEmbarcadero Westbound and from Embarcadero Westbound onto Emerson in spite of thesignage prohibiting those turns. Police patrols are unlikely to be in the area at prime schoolcommute hours likely resulting in an increase in this illegal and dangerous driving behavior. 9. I found the minimal discussion of the school's failure to abide by the existing CUP in theland use section of the report to be particularly troublesome. Throughout the report, thewriters describe mitigation efforts that would minimize negative impacts. Since withoutthese mitigation efforts, there would have been many more negative impacts highlighted. A single sentence in section 4.2 of the draft EIR - "During the 2011-2012 academic schoolyear, the student population exceeded the 2000 CUP enrollment limitation of 415 students."- dramatically understates the school's behavior. I believe the school first surpassed theirallowed enrollment limit before the 2000 CUP was in effect (they anticipated it for the 1999-2000 school year, even though it was not effective until January 2000) and their failure toabide by it began before the 2010 school year mentioned in the report. The report fails tomention that the school had applied for 425 in the late 90s, but was limited to 415 by thecity and was explicitly told at that time "no more". There needs to be a thorough discussionof the factors that have changed since then for the city to allow what was rejected then.Given that many of the mitigation efforts described in the draft EIR require ongoing actionsby the school that are not dissimilar to the non-enrollment conditions of the 2000 CUP, amore thorough discussion of the school's failure to follow them after they were imposed in2000 needs to be added. I also understand that the recently retired city manager referredto these conditions as unenforceable. A reasonable person should demand more analysis ofif these were ignored and unenforceable for the past 19 years, how they will be followedand enforced going forward. 10. It is my understanding that the school would require a modification of the existingunderground easement associated with the city's abandonment of the surface easementwhen the Melville cul-de-sac was turned into a playing field by the school, and possibly therelocation of sewer lines. I may have missed it, but I did not see any discussion of this andthe possible impacts on sewer flows and storm runoff. 11. When the school built the underground gymnasium, they encountered water andstopped construction until a detailed water abatement plan was developed and approved. Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 The pump system behind the art building on Emerson is an ongoing feature of the plan. Given this history, there needs to be a more detailed analysis and description based on 20+ years of experience related to the underground stream that is part of the area. 12. The plan calls for the removal of 2 single family residences which the report dismissesas inconsequential without any serious discussion. Given the tremendous housing shortagein Palo Alto, this section needs to be enhanced significantly. I am sure a more thorough reading the hundreds of pages in the report will bring to lightmany more deficiencies and I call on the commission members to do so and to return thereport to the staff as unacceptable. The staff should also be directed to interview impactedneighbors to ascertain their concerns and their individual histories of interactions with theschool when the school failed to follow CUP requirements over the past 30 years. Sincerely, Bill Powar Emerson StreetPalo Alto, CA 94301bill@thepowars.com Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:Charlene Flack To:Planning Commission Subject:Expansion of Castilleja school Date:Friday, August 2, 2019 12:28:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I live in Old Palo Alto. No doubt this expansion would greatly have a negative impact on the immediate neighborhood. In over 30 years, I have never seen the school reach out to the neighborhood for any inclusive activity. At this point if 75% of student are non -Palo Alto residents and the neighbors disapprove, I don’t believe any exceptions should be made. Also, how much does the school pay to the City of Palo Alto which could be used to improve the community? Are they exempt from taxes? Do the students even volunteer for local projects or initiatives? Sent from my iPad Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:Nathan Fahrenthold To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; letters@paweekly.com; letters@padailypost.com Subject:I am 100% Against the Castilleja Expansion Date:Friday, August 2, 2019 9:34:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Planning Commission, I drive the Emerson / Embarcadero route multiple times a day and strongly feel the expansionwould effect my commute to work. Adding a parking garage in a residential neighborhood also sounds absolutely ridiculous. Why are we negatively impacting long term residents who have lives in the area for decades to benefit out of town, temporary folks? Thanks, NF-- Nathan Fahrenthold Greer Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:Pamela Ballus To:Planning Commission Date:Friday, August 2, 2019 10:35:52 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Planning Commissioners: I have lived at Alma Street for 23 years, and I regularly walk my dog twice a day in the neighborhood. I enjoy the early mornings before the students at Castilleja start arriving; the blocks surrounding the school areverdant with old oak trees and redwoods, on and off campus. I know how busy the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up can be, on three sides of the school (Bryant, Kellogg, and Emerson). The school is very trafficky some evenings and weekends as well. During the commute times,Castilleja takes up much of the air around the neighborhood, kids being dropped off slowly in lines of cars, or a couple of blocks away willy-nilly, and traffic jams occur as parents try to navigate the quickest way around back onto Embarcadero or Alma. I have read enough of the environmentalimpact report and looked at the plans and do not understand how the City of Palo Alto could even entertain tearing down two houses and their surrounding tall redwoods and oaks to build an underground garage for more cars to enter this small area, with the idea parents will line up andslowly enter and exit single outlets. The site is a small site, it is maxed out between 438 girls and 140 staff on 6 acres, and increasing enrollment would further intensify the traffic and activity. It would seem that if the school wanted to grow, they should split middle school from high school,into two campuses, like most integrated schools do when they want to grow. This would allow Castilleja to accommodate more girls and save a small neighborhood from its demise. Alternatively, the school should intensify their shuttle service and require all drop-offs at a satellite parkingspot, and showing they could keep traffic down, maybe they could requesta bit more enrollment. Please deny the school the right to trump the neighbors by tearing downhouses and trees to build a garage. Pamela Ballus Alma StreetPalo Alto, CA 94301 Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:Roy Maydan To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; letters@paweekly.com; letters@padailypost.com Subject:Support for Castilleja Plan Date:Friday, August 2, 2019 8:44:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I am writing to express my support for Castilleja's plan to modify its CUP to expandenrollment. Castilleja is an asset to the community and their plans with the increased enrollment will only make the school a better environment. I have faith that the school willwork with the city to mitigate any outstanding negative impacts to their plan, just as they have spent the past few years working to reduce car traffic to the school and to honor theiragreement with the city to gradually reduce enrollment. Sincerely, Roy Maydan Byron St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:nancytuck@aol.com To:Planning Commission; Council, City; letters@paweekly.com; letters@padailypost.com Subject:Supporter of Castilleja Date:Friday, August 2, 2019 10:05:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I am an ardent supporter of Castilleja, their mission, their proposal to modernize, and their application for an enrollment increase. I live on Melville Avenue, between Emerson and Alma. I have never suffered a single moment from traffic, noise, or parking due to the Castilleja students or activities. My neighbors are fabricating these issues, and for the life of me I cannot fathom their motives. As I read their online posts and letters to the editor, there is a distinct message that private schools are evil - they serve the wealthy and they attract students from beyond Palo Alto's boundaries. In fact, Castilleja offers scholarships to a material portion of their students, and often students from outside of Palo Alto who bring a diversity that enriches the learning experience. Some neighbors cannot let go of the enrollment misrepresentation from over a decade ago. But I've lived here since before the enrollment issue was unveiled, and NONE of these people mentioned an issue or a hardship with the school back then. Castilleja is a stellar neighbor, with a sensitivity to its surroundings like no other institution I know. The daily visible traffic control management, the repeated invitations to attend meetings to discuss neighborhood issues, the letters and notices I receive warning me about days when they expect heavy traffic (about twice a year) -- no similar courtesies from Paly. I pay sky-high property taxes to live in this robust and thriving community. I want choice for girls - to attend an excellent public school or a nationally ranked all-girls school. There are many of us who live next to Castilleja who feel this same way. The NIMBYism that is prevalent with a mostly older, retired, and nonnegotiable subset of Palo Alto is offensive. These people are fighting this issue like it's a proposal for a Navigation Center for the mentally ill and drug addicted homeless. They want Palo Alto to return to its 1960s self. It can't and won't happen, and hopefully the City won't sacrifice an outstanding school's mission at the insistence of this selfish few. Nancy Tuck Melville Ave Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Public Comment 8-14-19 From:Amy Christel To:Castilleja Expansion Subject:Opposing expansion at Castilleja Date:Tuesday, August 06, 2019 10:34:27 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Staff and Council Members, In this city where traffic snarls are present more hours of the day than not, where infrastructure can’t be maintained fast enough, where we have public schools that are the envy of many,there is no justifiable reason for an expansion of a private school in a residential neighborhood, where only 27% of students are from our city.! Add the history of flagrantviolation of CUP enrollment limits, and it astounds me that the City has even entertained the proposed expansion project at Castilleja. The fact that so few students are from our city suggests the obvious solution to the school’sgrowth needs must be the creation of an additional campus in another city that would better serve students from communities currently commuting miles to Palo Alto. Please do not succumb to the notion that girls can only receive a great education fromCastilleja. Palo Alto public schools served my daughter splendidly. Besides, no private, elitist institution will ever be large enough to satisfy demand for admission. Not Stanford, notCastilleja. Please deny any enrollment increase at Castilleja, and demand they decrease current enrollment to the allowed number. The fact is, all the proposed traffic impact remediations are not guaranteed to be followed or towork, and once the expansion is complete, there will be no way to enforce adherence. The Middlefield, El Camino, and Embarcadero corridors are already too congested and dangerous. Don’t make traffic worse, and sacrifice a residential street in addition, by approving this project. Sincerely,Amy Christel Midtown PA from my iPad From:Malcolm Slaney To:Castilleja Expansion Subject:Expansion Date:Monday, August 05, 2019 3:06:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I think Castilleja is great. I’m happy they are in Palo Alto. But I don’t understand why it is so important that they stay in this neighborhood, especially if they desire to increase their enrollment. Wouldn’t they be better off expanding in some other area of Palo Alto that isn’t surrounded by family homes? Especially, as I understand it, they are planning to tear down and replace most of the buildings. Why are they acting like bad neighbors? - Malcolm From:Mary Sylvester To:French, Amy Cc:Lait, Jonathan Subject:Castilleja DEIR--Traffic Section Date:Friday, August 02, 2019 3:12:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good afternoon, Amy. I'm writing with a question for you about the DEIR for Castilleja School, specifically the Traffic Section and the underlying study. I have been under the impression that CEQA Sections 15130 and 15355 require that the cumulative impacts of a project be analyzed. As Stanford's Medical Center is now coming "on line" and Stanford's GUP has been drafted and is being recirculated, and as both these projects impact Embarcadero Rd and the Castilleja traffic flow, I am curious why the WTrans/Dudek study makes no mention of them. And that seems to violate CEQA on the "face" of the Act. From what the Dudek/WTrans report states close consultation was had with City staff about the scope of the Dudek/WTrans report. Can you please explain your understanding of the Dudek/WTrans intent as to not including an analysis if Stanford traffic impacts? Appreciatively, Mary Sylvester From:Judy Low To:Castilleja Expansion Subject:Castilleja Expansion Date:Saturday, July 13, 2019 9:35:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Ms. French, We are writing in opposition to Castilleja’s expansion. We have lived in Palo Alto for over 30 years and pass Castilleja at least twice a day. The traffic gets worse every year and it’s a daily bear to pass through Embarcadero. The traffic congestion can’t all be blamed on Castilleja but adding another 100+ students and newconstruction is just adding to the serious traffic problems. We are also opposed to Castilleja’s expansion because of their past behavior of increasing their enrollment against the agreement. How can we even consider expanding the enrollment after that illegal behavior? What kind of example does that set for their students? It tells us they can flaunt the rules and do what they want. It’s so disrespectful. The penalty they paid was insignificant to Castilleja. For Castilleja to portray the issues as supporting or not supporting women’s education is so disrespectful to Palo Alto. We all support women being educated, but what kind of education are they teaching when the school doesn’t even follow a contractual agreement to keep the enrollment numbers as agreed? Palo Alto provides an excellent opportunity for its female students already. We do not need more facilities…….and we do not need to provide the educational needs of non-residents. Castilleja has not been a good neighbor. Please do not let Castilleja expand or construct the new buildings. This is would have a negative impact on the neighborhoods and Palo Alto as a family city. Best regards, Kenneth & Judy Low Rhodes Dr. From:Pria Graves To:French, Amy Subject:Castilleja project Date:Monday, July 29, 2019 4:13:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Hi Amy - I’ve been looking at the traffic analysis in the Castilleja EIR and somehow I don’t see any analysis of the impact on Bryant Bike Boulevard users. I see increased traffic on Lincoln to Bryant to Embarcadero (why? - makes no sense to me????) and decreased on Bryant south of Embarcadero. But what I don’t find is any discussion of how the increased number of vehicles turning right off Embarcadero onto Bryant to reach the parking garage is likely to impact cyclists. I use Bryant all the time and I know that lots of folks do not really stop at red lights before making their turn. If the project adds to the number making that turn, anxious to reach the garage, it makes crossing that intersection a lot less safe. Am I missing something? I do see that they address queuing problems on Bryant although they seem to dismiss it, suggesting staggered bell schedules or whatever. But nothing about the fact that having lots of extra cars with frantic parents behind the wheel is NOT a good environment for bikes. I’m also not seeing analysis of the construction impacts on Bryant. I cannot believe they can build a big underground garage without making life miserable for cyclists! Even the City utility work on Churchill is creating insanity currently, including oversized trucks with trailers using Mariposa/Miramonte/Castelleja to make a U-turn back to Churchill! Sorry to be a pest but as a senior cyclist, I really cannot afford to get clobbered by a frantic mom! Thanks. Pria Attachment E Commissioners received hardcopies of the Draft EIR and CDs of the Appendices. These are viewable at the Downtown Library, Development Center, City Hall 5th Floor and on the project webpage – the homepage link is www.cityofpaloalto.org/Castilleja Castilleja School Project Documents are found at this link https://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/project_documents_.asp Attachment F Project Plans Commissioners have hardcopies of project plans. These plans are available to the public on the ‘Castilleja School Project Documents’ webpage at https://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/project_documents_.asp The City’s home page for the project is www.cityofpaloalto.org/castilleja The ‘Castilleja School Project Documents’ page provides a section entitled ‘Castilleja School Project Applicant Submittal Items -2019’ Members of the public can click on links to these applicant-provided documents under this section: The phasing plan, applicant’s project description, July 1 plans and replacement sheets regarding tree plans, tentative map and applicant’s report regarding the Blue Atlas Cedar tree Plans and other documents are also viewable in the lobby of the Planning and Development Services Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue and on Building Eye. Directions to review Project plans on Building Eye: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “1310 Bryant Street” 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 “project plans” CITY OF PALO ALTO TO:PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:JONATHAN LAIT,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATE:AUGUST 14,2019 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2 -PUBLIC HEARING.1310 BRYANT STREET,1235 AND 1263 EMERSON STREET:PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REVIEW OF AND RECEIPT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)PREPARED FOR THE CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PROJECT.THE DRAFT EIR WAS PUBLISHED ON JULY 17,2019 FOR A 60- DAY INITIAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 16,2019.FILE #5: 16PLN-00234,17PLN-00238,AND 19PLN-00116.FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT AMY FRENCH,CHIEF PLANNING OFFICIAL,AT AMY.FRENCH@CITYOFPALOALTO.ORG The public comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Castilleja School Project received August 7 through August 14,2019 at 2pm are attached to this memo.Comments received July 17 through August 6,2019 were provided with the PTC packet for August 14, 2019 Amy Frch,AICP achael Tanner Chief Planning Official Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Planning and Development Services 1 of 1 From:Mary Jo Pruitt To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:I Support Castilleja! Date:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 1:53:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To Whom It May Concern, My name is Mary Jo and I live on Stanford campus, along El Camino. I am writing to let you know that I support Castilleja's application to educate more young women, modernize thecampus, and return their impact on the neighborhood. I appreciate the DEIR's findings in support of Castilleja's plans, and you look forward tolearning about how the impacts due to the redistribution of traffic can be resolved. Additionally, I would love to mention that the new campus design is more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods; LEED Platinum Environmental measures surpass Palo Alto’s sustainability goals; the underground garage preferred over surface parking to increase green space; and the DEIR proposes further steps to allow for increased enrollment without increasing daily trips to campus. Thank you for allowing me the space to share my support. Best, Mary Jo 1 From:Kimberley Wong To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; French, Amy Subject:Fwd: DEIR Comments: 1263 Emerson Lockey house and 1235 home Date:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 9:45:41 AM Attachments:Lockey House.pngLockey house photos_Living room .pngScreen Shot 2017-02-17 at 4.25.17 PM.pngScreen Shot 2017-02-17 at 4.26.01 PM.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear PTC Board, My name is Kimberley Wong. My family has lived in Palo Alto for a long time starting withmy grandfather who moved her in 1900. I currently live at Emerson St opposite the Lockey house, the 100+ year old home dedicated to Castilleja's founder Mary Lockey abeloved educator who was encouraged by her mentor David Starr Jordan to open an all girls prep school in 1907. In Chapter 6 of the DEIR Cultural Resources study the architects were named for everybuilding on campus except for the Lockey house and the nextoor home that are planned to be demolished. I believe that it should be determined who the architect is of the Lockey house is before they decide against recommending the home is not historic. They were were only few architects at the time so there is a high probability that a notable architectsuch as Gustave Laumeister, involved in designing the Administration Building and many Professorville homes may have designed the Lockey home. This would satisfy one of theNational Historic Registry criteria. It already should satisfy Criteria #2 which states that the property is "associated with lives of persons important to the nation or California's past". Ms Mary Lockey founded the longest lasting Non-sectarian preparatory girl's school in the country. This home also "retains enough of the historic character with lead glass in the decorative archway between the entry and living room, crown moldings in the upstairs bedrooms and gracious dining room. Other additions were made but the main house upstairs and downstairs retain their original style and charm. Only one of these criteria plus keeping the integrity of the house is actually required for the house to be on the National registry. 2 I also would like the Dudek staff to explain how they came to the conclusion that removing 2 story homes with mature landscaping (minus the 100 foot tree which was alreadyremoved already) can be deemed "Insignificant"? And how can a long wall punctuated by a underground garage exit from which cars emerge be an insignificant impact to theaesthetics of the residential streetscape of Emerson? Lastly, I would ask again as I did in March of 2016 during the last PTC hearing to consider alternatives to demolishing 2 homes when there is such a great need for housing: 1. Reduce traffic to the Embarcadero corridor through shuttling all students, staff and students to the campus without building a garage and taking down 2 homes 2. Turn part of the Lockey house into a historical museum to showcase 100+ years of Castilleja history and retain housing for out of town visitors. I find that removing the Lockey house is historically significant when retains its historic character, is associated with the founder of Castilleja, and could possibly be designed by a notable architect. No amount of fencing and greenery can mask the loss of two homes andthe opening of a garage. In fact, introducing a garage with only one way onto the Bryant street bike boulevard introduces significant impact to traffic flow and bike safety on an already busy intersection which cars and cyclists, many of which are schoolchildren, cross daily. Many accidents and near accidents have occurred on that intersection. And as recently as Feb 13, 2018 there was a serious injury to 2 commuters, one a Castillejateacher who was on his scooter and sent to the hospital for several days. These dangers can be reduced and CAN be avoidable if we don’t build the garage and require all drivers to park offsite and shuttle everyone onto campus. Thank you, Kimberley Wong Emerson Street 3 From:Anna Verwillow To:Planning Commission Subject:I Support Castilleja Date:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 12:36:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I grew up a few blocks from Castilleja and attending the school for seven years. I stayed in the area, just graduating from Stanford this past June, and come home frequently enough. I endedup missing most of the struggle between the school and the neighbors by graduating in 2015, only having a few years at the end of high school with increased parking restrictions. Thatmeant I then mainly learned of the extent of the issue when yard signs saying "Block Castilleja Expansion" or "Put Your Project On Hold and Start a Conversation with the Neighbors"(seemingly more moderate but in the same font as the former) cropped up over the last few years. And they cropped up not just in the surrounding area but literally all over Palo Alto; Idon't see what impact this issue would have with residents in the extended Palo Alto area. Castilleja has listened to every one of the concerns voiced by the neighborhood (immediate and beyond) and incorporated all of the feedback into a thoughtful and well-laid out proposal.It has been so many years of making changes in plans and including delays to accumulate more feedback. We park on the grass field during school events instead of in the neighborhood—that to me is such a clear demonstration of thought and effort from the entire community. I almost start to worry that it's an issue of sexism, that the women's school is being kind but thatpeople continue push around the girls' school. Paly increased enrollment to no comment and Stanford has huge housing projects proposed that the county is worried about but theneighbors are not. Why have they singled out Castilleja? I meant to write a couple sentences, show support, but this topic is unfortunately divisive. My response has been brewing for years because I now feel alienated from my community, likethey are targeting me or like they don't see value in what I learned and how that shaped the person I have become. Ultimately, I support Castilleja's plan to bring their world-classeducation to more women. I will forever be shaped by the caring and long-lasting community, brilliant and compassionate peers, insightful and invested teachers, and wide-reaching andparticular lessons I've gained because of Castilleja. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Anna VerwillowPalo Alto resident (all 22 years) 4 From:Rita Vrhel To:Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja"s DEIR Date:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 10:01:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Commissioners: At your 8/14 meeting regarding Castilleja's DEIR I hope, while listening to every speaker, you will remember that those living outside of Palo Alto are likely to be much less impacted by theproposed changes Castilleja is seeking. Please remember, many "out of town" parents and supporters will not be living with 4+ years of daily construction noise or lined up on Alma, Embarcadero, El Camino or adjacent sidestreets waiting while additional cars arrive and exit school. Embarcadero is already a mess! Drive to Town and Country any time of the day, even when Paly and Stanford are not is session, and experience the frustration of traffic and ill timedtraffic lights. I reviewed several sections of the DEIR. I am honestly appalled at the poor quality of the information provided and, more so, about the basic information NOT provided. I do not understand how this DEIR could be released. Please review the Castilleja DEIRcarefully for what it contains and more importantly for what is missing. In my opinion, the Castilleja DEIR, does not meet the basic definition provide on page 2-1 , Chapter 2, Introduction, which states: "This Draft EIR provides the primary source of environmental information for the City andother public agencies to consider when exercising any permitting authority or approval power directly related to implementation of this project. As stated in CEQA guidelines, Section 1512(a): An EIR is an informative document which will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of the project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. The public agency shall consider the information in the EIR along with other information which may be presented to the agency". Thank you for reading my email. Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM Medical Case Management 5 From:Nelson Ng To:Planning Commission; Lait, Jonathan Cc:Council, City Subject:Comment on traffic study for Castilleja DEIR Date:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 5:41:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Planning Director and Planning and Transportation Commission, My name is Nelson Ng. I live at 1260 Emerson Street directly across from the 1263 Emerson Street known as the Lockey House that is owned by Castilleja School. I found that the DEIR published for Castilleja’s Expansion is incomplete and the basis for analysis is fatally flawed. The baseline traffic study was based on only three days – January 26, 2017; May 16, 2017 and April 10, 2019. These days were mid-week and the data was based on Castilleja’s self survey and vehicle counts. To provide a more accurate understanding of the project and its impacts, what should be evaluated in the traffic study for Castilleja’s proposed project are: · Current traffic counts for the full neighborhood (including nearby Palo Alto High School) for a full week while Castilleja and Palo Alto High is in session. The traffic count should include vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. This traffic count should be signed off by a Castilleja official certifying that the count is accurate. Bicyclists, both adult commuters and school children make up the majority of traffic on the Bryant street bike boulevard and should be included. · Traffic should be counted (car and bike/pedestrians/other) for the full neighborhood for a full week while o Castilleja and Palo Alto High are in session. o Castilleja is not in session while Palo Alto High is in session. o Palo Alto High School is not in session while Castilleja is in session · All intersections within a half-mile to a mile radius, especially those with traffic signals need to be included. Critical intersections missing are: Embarcadero/Waverley; Embarcadero/Pedestrian crossing at Palo Alto High School; and Embarcadero Road/Town & Country/Palo Alto High School Driveways. In addition, the traffic study needs to address the construction traffic for the three-five years 6 of construction. The information in the report puts the responsibility on the future contractor for construction routes, construction staging, and construction parking. The volume of vehicles and the duration of the project warrant that a complete study, recommendations, and mitigations for this work be presented in the EIR instead. The traffic study also needs to include proposed projects such as the CalTrain rail crossing project, the City of Palo Alto’s modifications to Embarcadero Road for bicyclists, etc. From this baseline, the traffic report should be rewritten/resubmitted for review. 1. The following 3 Alternatives are listed in the DEIR: 1: Staying with 415 students and no construction 2: 73% enrollment increase to 506 students and demolish two Single Family Home to build an underground garage 3: 73% enrollment increase to 506 students and demolish one Single Family Home to build an underground garage This DEIR is incomplete because the Chapter 7 Transportation section did not analyze impact of any enrollment increase option without an underground garage. This report focuses on how to make the garage achievable by various means to mitigate the three Significant but Unavoidable impacts. Instead, it should study other alternatives that allows for a moderate enrollment increase (20% to 30%) without an underground garage to address the traffic impacts such as satellite parking areas and splitting the campus to provide a truly unbiased solutions for the community. I am requesting this DEIR to provide the current impact of Castilleja comparing to other streets listed to be included in item 3 below and to study the impact of an alternative without an underground garage but using satellite parking for all students being driven in with school shuttles running between the satellite parking lot and the campus. 2. In page 7-12, The peak hour is determined based on the actual trafficvolume data; it is defined by the City and Caltransguidance as the 60-minute period during which thehighest traffic volumes were observed. The peak periodfor morning commute traffic is from 7:00 AM to 9:00AM; … The school afternoon peak period occurs between 2:00PM and 4:00 PM … The evening peak period, between 4:00PM and 6:00 PM, … The commute traffic has increased significantly in recent years. The peak period has 7 expanded. Therefore, the peak period study should be expanded to the following: · morning commute traffic 7:00AM to 10:00AM · evening commute traffic to 4:00pm to 7:30PM. 3. The following is stated in page 7-13, At the time of the existing conditions traffic countsin January 2017, enrollment at Castilleja School was438 students. Site-specific trip generation rates forthe AM, School PM, and PM peak hours were developedbased on driveway counts and adjusted based on resultsfrom a student travel pattern survey. It is estimatedthat the school site currently generates 352 vehicletrips during the AM peak hour, 274 vehicle trips duringthe School PM peak hour, and 176 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour, Site specific trip generation rates based on driveway counts and adjusted based on results from a student travel pattern survey is problematic and will not yield accurate results. Students are routinely dropped off one to two blocks away from the campus. For example, Castilleja students are routinely dropped off at the cul-de-sac on Melville between Bryant and Waverley. Those traffic counts are not included in Castilleja’s count of cars entering their parking lot. Student travel pattern survey is conjecture at best. During the March 2017 scoping letter input for the DEIR, I suggested the following study criteria to establish a baseline. The data should be compared with traffic of “what is allowable” for the Single Family R-1 neighborhood and not the existing condition. This determines the TRUE impact of Castilleja traffic to its surrounding neighborhood. Some surrounding neighbors have observed a 90% traffic reduction on days when Castilleja is not in session while Palo Alto schools are still in session. Therefore, the study must measure traffic impact with and without Castilleja in session. In addition, missing from the study are the impacts of a hundred of Castilleja school events per school year including evening and weekend events and the two summer camp sessions per year. The following are a list of items the Traffic study must include - Castilleja in session while Palo Alto school in session - Castilleja school is out on holiday with no activities while Palo Alto school in session - Palo Alto school holiday while Castilleja 8 school in session - The days that Castilleja have evening and weekday events - During the summer, with and without Castilleja Summer School in session. All studies should be done on a weekly basis of 24x7 period and not just one day in week to avoid missing significant traffic pattern changes for different days of the week. Please see item #6 for the complete set of streets and intersections to be studied. 4. Projects such as Grade Separation at Churchill and Alma, Stanford GUP expansion and bike lane on Embarcadero Road will have major traffic impacts to this neighborhood. This study must include the cumulative impact of Castilleja expansion along with these projects. This study should show the impact of Castilleja expansion with the additional impact from each project. 5. The 3 to 5 years construction for this expansion project must be studied. We need to understand what is the feasible for this neighborhood to handle with increase in traffic created by the construction related machinery and staging. 6. A number of streets and intersections that were submitted to be studied as part of the March 2017 EIR Scoping comment are omitted in the DEIR study listed in page 7-5 to 7-7. Please see attached update to Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2. Please include them into the study for the final EIR. 7. In Page 7-30, Table 7-10 shows the following Daily Trips count for different number of enrolled student scenarios. This yields 2.74 Daily Trips per student for all 4 scenarios. Condition # of Students Daily Trips Existing CUP 415 1,135 2017 Enrollment 438 1,198 2018 Enrollment 434 1,187 Proposed Project 540 1,477 In page 7-19, it stated “The existing ADT was determined based on 24-hour machine counts conducted in January 2017 and September/October 2018”. Is the Daily Trips number for 2018 Enrollment Condition measured from Sept/Oct 2018 study or just calculated using the rate for 2017 Enrollment. If it is measured, please explain how the rates 2017 and 2018 are exactly the same? If it is calculated, please provide the actual measured daily trip. 9 8. In Table 7-4 of page 7-14, the following is car trips exiting the garage - AM Peak(7am to 9am): 199 (This works out to be 18.1sec per car) - School Peak PM(2pm to 4pm): 187 (This works out to be 19.3sec per car) - PM Peak(4pm to 6pm): 124 (This works out to be 29sec per car) In table 7-12 of page 7-40, it estimates the following Delay time with this project at Emerson right turn onto Embarcadero - AM Peak(7am to 9am): 24.7 sec (145.7 cars/hr) - School Peak PM(2pm to 4pm): 24 sec (150 cars/hr) - PM Peak(4pm to 6pm): 20.1 sec (179 cars/hr) Majority of the morning drop-off traffic and afternoon pickup traffic will not be evenly spread out during the 60 minutes period. Most traffic will appear within the 15 minutes before and after the bell. Therefore, the study should provide a the study of the same traffic volume of within a 30 minutes window to calculate how many cars will back up through the proposed garage onto Embarcadero from Bryant entrance due to the delay of cars making a right turn from Emerson onto Embarcadero. 9. The following claim regarding Castilleja expansion impact on bike safety is on page 7-29. The project includes a reduction in total curb cutdriveways from eleven driveways … to six driveways … The reduction in driveway curb cuts will improvebicycle safety. However, I am unable to find any traffic study data and analysis in the report to substantiate this claim that significant traffic increases to the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard by combining all incoming Castilleja traffic entering the proposed garage by making a left turn from Embarcadero onto Bryant Street and then a right turn from Bryant to enter the garage will not put Bike Boulevard users at risk. Bryant Street Bike Safety Boulevard is one of the most used commute routes by PAUSD students biking to 10 school. Castilleja auto traffic will be competing with the PAUSD students and other adult commuters for the right of way to use this busy section of the Bike Boulevard during the commute hour. This study must include data and analysis on the potential risk increase to PAUSD students and other bicyclists due to significant traffic increase during student commute hour. The study should include all previous traffic accidents including bicyclists and use the data to project the potential of increase accidents by the increased traffic. Please refer to item 8, on the volume of Castilleja traffic should not be averaged on a 60 minutes basis but rather concentrating on the 15 minutes before and after the school session bell time. The study should also include scenarios when cars are backed onto Bryant and Embarcadero from the garage per study of item #8, the increase risk to the bicyclists when cars are blocking the intersection of Bryant and Embarcadero or abandoning entering the garage and competing with bicyclists to travel south on Bryant Street. 11 Waverley Street from: - Churchill Ave to Coleridge - Coleridge to Lowell Bryant Street from: - Churchill to Coleridge - Coleridge to Lowell Emerson Street from: - Churchill to Coleridge - Coleridge to Lowell 12 Churchill Avenue from: - Embarcadero to Cowper - Cowper to Waverley Alma Street from - Churchill to Coleridge - Coleridge to Lowell Lincoln Avenue from: - Cowper to Waverley Kingsley Avenue from: - Cowper to Waverley Melville Avenue from - Cowper to Waverley - Waverley to Embarcadero (cul-de-sac) Embarcadero Road from - Middlefield to Bryon - Bryon to Webster - Webster to Tasso - Tasso to Cowper - Cowper to Waverley 13 - Waverley to Bryant - Bryant to Emerson - Emerson to El Camino Kellogg Avenue from: - Alma to Emerson - Emerson to Bryant - Bryant to Waverley Coleridge Avenue from: - Alma to Emerson - Emerson to Bryant - Bryant to Waverley - Waverley to Cowper Lowell Avenue from: - Alma to Emerson - Emerson to Bryant - Bryant to Waverley - Waverley to Cowper Cowper Street from - Lincoln to Kingsley - Kingsley to Melville 14 - Melville to Kellogg - Kellogg to Embarcadero - Embarcadero to Churchill - Churchill to Coleridge - Coleridge to Lowell Sincerely Nelson Ng 15 From:Andie Reed To:Planning Commission; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Purpose of the DEIR Date:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 7:34:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Planning Commissioners: Castilleja has recently sent an email to their supporters claiming that the DEIR confirms that the expansion plans are 100% compatible with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Please read Chapter 4, pages 11 through 20, and make your own judgement. Although the opening paragraph states the report provides an analysis of the consistency with each policy, it is clearly not an independent analysis. In this section there are mis-statements, it ignores the underground garage in the sustainability, traffic and climate change sections, and it often uses actual verbiage from the school's application as the "analysis". You can say "consistent" over and over but that doesn't make it so. Here are a few examples: 1. Policy L-1.2: Limit future urban development....., the analysis states "the project site is currently developed with school facilities". That is not the case. Two R-1 zoned residential lots are part of the proposed expansion, owned by the Castilleja Foundation but they are not within school property. The school needs a variance, called a Tentative Map with Exception, in order to merge two residential lots into the school property, resulting in a loss to the City of housing and property taxes, and to the community of the short residential block of Emerson between Melville and Embarcadero. 2. Policy L-1.5: Regulate land uses..., the analysis states "No change to the land use designation of the site is proposed". This is not the case. The school proposes to change the rental real estate residential lots into tax-exempt school property. 3. Policy L-1.6: Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community..., the analysis directly lifts verbiage from the school's Master Plan that Palo Alto needs a single- gender, non-sectarian school and therefore encroaching into the neighborhood is good for the community. This is not an analysis, it is a repetition of the school's written purpose, without stating how or why. 4. Policy N-8.1: Take action to achieve target reductions in greenhouse gas emission levels.... The analysis discusses that the new buildings will use more energy efficient materials and goes on to repeat the school's sustainability plan. Nowhere is digging a hole to fill with concrete in order to build storage for cars addressed. In summary, there are many areas of the expansion plans that do not comply with the goals or the spirit of the Comp Plan, and should be stated as such. This "analysis" is a disturbing reflection and repetition of Castilleja's Master Plan and other public relations material. This does not engender trust in the process. This DEIR has been "coming" for two years, yet this product is disrespectful to the reader, the City of Palo Alto, and all the time and effort everyone has put into the process. I think we all deserve a serious independent study of the project. Thank you, Andie Reed -- Andie Reed Melville Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 16 17 From:elenac1128@yahoo.com To:Planning Commission Subject:Fw: Castilleja expansion Date:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 1:02:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Typo in first attempt. Please read below ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: elenac1128@yahoo.com <elenac1128@yahoo.com>To: planning.comission@cityofpaloalto.org <planning.comission@cityofpaloalto.org>;city.council@cityofpaloalto.org <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org<amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019, 10:52:47 AM PDTSubject: Castilleja expansion Dear sirs/madams, My family live two blocks from Castilleja(Casti) on Bryant St. Everyday my driving is tensed because traffic is congested during their drop off and pick up times. The traffic conductors provided by Casti during their busy times but it's like driving out of a concert everyday. I believe Casti encourage their girls to bike. However majority of the girls don't live close by. Casti usually accept one to two girls from our local elementary public schools and not that many of the local public school girls applied. I would say it's less than 40% of their girls can bike or walk to school. Also, Casti's location is right near the populated hubs/facilities: Paly, Stanford University, Stanford hospital and Pamp hospital. So many cars, buses are driving both lanes on Embarcadero St, El Camino Real and bikes on Bryant St already. Ican't believe how's the traffic and the environment like when there are big constructions and when school is expanded. Or any catastrophes happened........... Casti is a wonderful school BUT it needs to consider and respect the residentialneighborhood. I truly hope your committee will have a fair and honest review of their plans. Thank you Sincerely,Elena Chiu Bryant St, Palo Alto 18 From:Pria Graves To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Castilleja DEIR Date:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 3:06:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ Dear Planning Commissioners, I have many concerns about Castilleja’s proposed expansion. First, as a cyclist who regularly uses the Bryant Street bike boulevard, the expected increase in traffic in that area isunacceptable and will increase risks to cyclists. I’m particularly concerned about the traffic turning offEmbarcadero to enter the proposed underground garage. Many drivers seem to feel that it’s ok to make a right onred regardless of whether there is cross traffic, especially if that traffic happens to be a cyclist. Adding a majorgarage entrance just around the corner is likely to exacerbate this problem. In addition, the construction process itself will make the bike boulevard essentially unusable for years. There issimply no way to manage an excavation of that scale without impacting the surrounding area. Even if the Cityintends to impose special rules on where the trucks and equipment necessary may travel/park/etc., such regulationshave been demonstrated repeatedly to be ineffective. Enforcement is always inadequate. The hazard to cyclistsattempting to pass the site will be enormous. Second, the idea of allowing the removal of protected mature oaks and redwoods is absurd. Apart from the damageto the aesthetics of the neighborhood, in a time of looming climate change, we need to keep all the trees we have. Please do not support the idea that there are sufficient “overriding benefits” to justify their removal. Finally, apart from these two specific concerns of mine, there is the whole issue of how much growth is enough. Aseconomist Kenneth Boulding said, "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world iseither a madman or an economist.” It’s time for us to wake up and realize that we need to learn to live sustainablyand that doesn’t mean build, build, build! Thank you. Regards, Pria GravesYale St. 19 From:Rebecca Sanders To:Planning Commission; Council, City Cc:Furman, Sheri; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Advocating for a Meaningful and Accurate EIR for Castilleja Date:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 2:05:30 PM Attachments:PAN Castilleja Letter.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. August 13, 2019 Dear City Council Members and Planning and Transportation Commissioners: At the August meeting of Palo Alto Neighborhoods, our membership voted to request formally that the Final Castilleja Environment Impact Report (FEIR) include — as required by law —the impacts of other significant developments as part of the cumulative impact of Castilleja’s expansion plans. The Draft EIR excludes this important analysis. Specifically, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an EIRspecifically include the cumulative impacts of a project (see Section 15130 http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art9.html; see also Section 15355.http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art20.html): "When analyzing the cumulative impacts of a project under 15130 (b)(1)(A), the Lead Agency is required to discuss not only approved projects under construction andapproved related projects not yet under construction, but also unapproved projects currently under environmental review with related impacts or which result in significantcumulative impacts." Of the many projects currently planned in and around Palo Alto, two will have particularly severe impacts: 1. The Stanford Medical Center project is nearing completion. Therefore, any traffic analysis must be adjusted by projected increases from the Stanford Medical Center. Assome of the increased traffic from the Stanford Medical Center will travel along Embarcadero Road, a roadway also impacted by the Castilleja project, the impacts ofthese projects are clearly and cumulatively quite considerable. 2. The new Stanford University General Use Permit (GUP) is currently underconsideration by Santa Clara County. This will increase traffic from Stanford University along Embarcadero Road as well. Again, the impacts of the new GUP are clearly andcumulatively quite considerable. The DEIR and the analysis provided by the consultants point to the projects' significant impacts on Palo Alto. Certainly, the GUP must beincluded in Castilleja’s EIR. (See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63291; DEIR, page 47; andHexagon Transportation Consultants analysis of the DEIR, page 65.) Oddly enough, Stanford is never mentioned in Castilleja’s DEIR. (Please seehttp://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72444.) Castilleja is situated on Embarcadero just blocks from Stanford, yet no impact will ensue? Is there no need to considerthe possibly hundreds of extra car trips likely caused by Stanford's expansion? Castilleja will be accommodating more cars than ever in its proposed new garage. Those cars will have to 20 arrive at and leave from campus somehow. As reported in the Weekly and elsewhere, the Cityis asking Stanford to pay millions of dollars in fees to mitigate the impacts of the GUP. (Please see: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/02/05/palo-alto-seeks-more-influence-on-stanford-expansion.) What are the historical trends of traffic congestion on Embarcadero? If it has been getting more congested over past decades, has the study projected what the congestion will be like in10, 20, and 30 years, all of which are relatively short compared to the lifetime of Castilleja and other traffic producers in this part of Palo Alto? While we have specifically cited the traffic impacts, we request all cumulative impacts beconsidered for these three projects taken together. If the Stanford GUP and the Stanford GUP FEIR are approved before the preparation of the Castilleja FEIR, then the Castilleja FEIR canconsider the approved Stanford University General Use Permit. Otherwise, the Castilleja FEIR must consider the highest impacts of any of the alternatives considered in the Stanford DEIR,including its recirculation. Additionally, the CEQA analysis of the Castilleja project, as stipulated by law and affirmed by the courts, must not be segmented. Please see section 15378(a) where “‘Project' means thewhole of an action." So even if the Castilleja project is constructed incrementally, it must be considered for purposes of CEQA as one project. Which of the dozens of construction projects in the pipeline at any one time should beincluded in a DEIR? Again CEQA offers guidance: "This analysis should include a discussion of projects under review by the Lead Agency and projects under review by other relevant public agencies, using reasonable efforts todiscover, disclose, and discuss the other related projects. The cumulative impact analysis requires a discussion of projects with related cumulative impacts whichrequired EIRs, Negative Declarations, or were exempt from CEQA. (See: San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco, (1984) 151Cal. App. 3d 61.) The court in SFFRG took note of the problem of where to draw the line on projects undergoing environmental review since application of new projects areconstantly being submitted. A reasonable point might be after the preparation of the draft EIR. Additional project information could be included in the final EIR ifcumulative impacts were originally analyzed in the draft EIR and if the new project information doesn't warrant the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR asrequired by Section 15162 of the Guidelines." Another concern we have is that the additional traffic on Embarcadero will rule out a major grade-crossing option currently being studied by the City, namely the possibility of partlyclosing Churchill at Alma. That closure could have a significant benefit for the safety of students at Palo Alto High School. While no DEIR is yet available for the closure and the Citymay not opt to pursue that option, we think it’s appropriate for the DEIR to address whether any additional traffic will be diverted by a Churchill closure onto Embarcadero, including tripsassociated with the projected Castilleja growth. The cumulative impacts would further contribute to traffic problems on Embarcadero and thus reduce or remove the possibility toclose Churchill. Again, that option is currently being analyzed by the CIty. We believe it is vitally important that the inadequate and incomplete Castilleja DEIR include 21 these additional projects and address these additional concerns we have put before you. As our elected leaders and public servants, we trust you and rely on you to uphold the lawswhich protect and guide us and which must apply equally to all of us. Thank you. Becky SandersSheri Furman Co-ChairsPalo Alto Neighborhoods 22 From:annette To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; French, Amy Subject:Letter on Castilleja Date:Monday, August 12, 2019 9:14:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto Planning Commission, I strongly oppose the proposed plans for the major expansion of Castilleja in a single-family neighborhood for many reasons. While I support the excellent education that young women receive, the desired addition of 125 students should be on another campus. This is a benefit of $7.25 million per year to a schoolthat has violated their CUP for years with few to no repercussions.Why is the city bending over backward to approve a project that violates multiple zoning codesand setbacks and will deteriorate our quality of life, causing much chaos with such little to nobenefit for the city?How many Palo Altans will this benefit? Palo Alto has a long history of supporting public schools whichare rated as some of the best in the country. Only 25% of the Castilleja attendees are from Palo Alto ---about 100 young Palo Alto women benefit from this education. The school states it gives scholarships.How many -- geographically, number of students and financial amounts? SHORT TERM IMPACTS Embarcadero at El Camino is the worst intersection in Palo Alto. Major construction on this corridor as well as the opening of Stanford Hospital and the potential closure of Churchill are a recipe for even more traffic disasters and backups creating difficult to impossible driving conditions. Furthermore, Embarcadero is not meant for trucks with heavy loads and the construction/excavation will result in major damage to the roads themselves. I oppose having a single entrance garage on Bryant. This will require all cars to enter on Bryant -- our first bike boulevard. The city is justifiably proud of the bike usage as the predominate bike boulevard in our fair city. Palo Alto has already paid a significant amount to facilitate bike traffic along Bryant Street, including closing the southbound intersection at Bryant on Embarcadero. 3-5 years of construction and future car traffic into the garage at all times of day will surely result in accidents, as this is a major route for students to Paly, Greene and Addison…not to mention other city workers and/or commuters passing through Palo Alto. Bike usage of this stretch will diminish with resulting confusion and overflow to other residential streets. Emerson Street as an egress will also be impacted by the construction. LONG TERM IMPACTS Our nearby neighbor Stanford University offers significant benefits and events for the community. What does this private school offer? This project will severely impact the quality of life and ambiance of the neighborhood as well as affecting all of us with impossible to mitigate traffic jams and hazards on Embarcadero and elsewhere. A dedicated lane for private school traffic on Embarcadero is unacceptable. There are far most pressing needs for traffic mitigation throughout Palo Alto that benefit more than a single entity. ADDITIONAL ISSUES Others will mention the removal of mature trees and loss of canopy, increased noise due to many more 23 evening/weekend events, significant ground water removal for the garage, particularly because Castilleja -- as a non-profit – pays no taxes and all of these impacts have long-term effects on the city with few, if any, direct benefits. Annette Glanckopf 24 From:Mike Graglia To:Castilleja Expansion Subject:I support the Expansion! Date:Monday, August 12, 2019 2:35:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto, I have been watching the Castilleja process over the past year and I am aware there is a meeting onWednesday. Sadly I cannot come to voice my support. This school has done everything right and I feel that the opposition is just venting about change in Palo Alto that goes well beyond Castilleja. I’m impressed with their environmental effort and what astandard this new building will set. But beyond that, I’m a fan of a school that has such a richhistory and is truly a part of Palo Alto. We should support and empower them to continue theirimportant work of offering a world class woman’s education. Thank you, Mike Michael Graglia Director – Budget, Planning & Analysis Mike@EmersonCollective.com Schedule a meeting Join a conference 650.434.8567 Office @jmichaelgraglia 25 From:JIM POPPY To:Planning Commission; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Castilleja DEIR Date:Monday, August 12, 2019 2:31:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. This is a repeat of an earlier email with images that were left off of my first email in the Public Comments section for August 14. Hello PTC, Please refer to the Castilleja DEIR Appendix E Traffic Impacts Analysis. The document does not address or measure the number of cyclists at peak times of the day, atEmbarcadero and Bryant, Bryant and Kellogg, or Bryant and Churchill (which is already a dangerous intersection at peak school times with Paly). The document does not address the issue of traffic being re-routed from the current flow (surface level dropoffs on Bryant and on Kellogg) to a single subterranean entrance on Bryant,requiring a left-hand turn by motorists traveling north on Bryant who would have normally dropped off students on Kellogg. CURRENT TRAFFIC FLOW - 2 SURFACE-LEVEL DROPOFFS 26 With traffic re-routed to a single entrance, traffic will be allowed to converge from bothdirections on Kellogg -- west from Waverly, and east from Emerson/Alma. Currently, trafficcan only approach the Kellogg dropoff point from the westbound direction. If cars approachthe garage from eastbound Kellogg, they will have to negotiate a lefthand turn onto Bryant,into oncoming bikes and cars on Bryant, and from eastbound cars on Kellogg trying to turnright onto Bryant. PROPOSED TRAFFIC FLOW - 1 ENTRANCE FOR 5 APPROACHES 27 Therefore, the single garage entrance would be the destination for all cars from 5 differentdirections. How can that be safe for cyclists? The document only refers to the number of seconds (14) needed to avoid queuing on Bryant,but the document does not specify where the queuing occurs. Queuing could easily happen onboth sides of Bryant, because cyclists also need to get through that area. Cyclists includecommuters and students to high school and middle school. It is very easy to imagine how motorists would be discouraged from having to negotiate astreet crowded with cars waiting to turn left across traffic and cyclists trying to get to theirdestination, and simply choose to drop off students on side streets. The Appendix only refers to daily volumes of cars on Bryant, stating that it would remainunder the 2,000 threshold of DAILY car trips. There will be at least 200 additional car tripsper day with the proposed plan, and they would be concentrated during peak times. Bicycle traffic should be measured at peak commute and school times in order toaccurately evaluate how the flow of cars into a single entrance would be impacted.Bicycle safety must be a priority. 28 A revised traffic study must be done to evaluate the impact of re-routing traffic from 2dropoffs, and how that will impact queuing on Bryant, and on Kellogg, as there willcertainly be more cars traveling in all directions. Regards,Jim PoppyMelville Ave. 29 From:Jacquelyn Glidden Subject:Please support the Castilleja expansion project Date:Monday, August 12, 2019 7:26:26 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To whom it may concern, I am writing this message to urge you to support and approve the Castilleja expansion project.I believe it is our duty to support and encourage the young women who will one day be our doctors, lawyers, mothers, and leaders. Castilleja creates a unique and extraordinaryenvironment for young women to learn and develop. The school has jumped through hoops to make their expansion go as smoothly as possible for the community and especially theresidents nearby. With the release of the DIER, it is clear that they have gone above and beyond in their efforts to mitigate any negative effects and to support the Palo AltoComprehensive Plan. It seems that the only point where Castilleja does not exceed expectations is in the number of cars that will be traveling to campus. However, consider this: how many other businesses andschools can say they have taken such measures to reduce their car traffic? And how many other independent businesses would be held to such a high standard? It is nearly impossiblefor the school to increase capacity without increasing traffic. The question becomes, are you willing to deny young women the best education and experience available to them becausethere would be a few more cars on the road in the morning? I'm certainly not. I hope you consider this message and truly think of the young women who will so clearly benefit, excel, and thrive with the Catilleja expansion. Once you consider them, the answer isclear, the Palo Alto community should support these women. Best, Jacquelyn Glidden Palo Alto resident and supporter of women's rights 30 From:Kate Shrout To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Comment in Support of Castilleja Date:Monday, August 12, 2019 12:23:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To whom it may concern: I own a home on the 100 block of Rinconada in Old Palo Alto, and have lived there for 3 years. I'm writing in support of Casti's proposed plans. I do not have children and do not haveany relatives who attend Casti. Even though I don't have a tie to the school, I strongly support its mission and goals to provide top-tier education to the next generation of women leaders. Regards, Kate Shrout 31 From:Anne Avis To:Planning Commission Subject:Supporting Casti"s plan! Date:Monday, August 12, 2019 10:53:04 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Planning Commission, I heartily support Castilleja’s growth plan! We live one block away in Old Palo Alto. It is a privilege to live near this school, a gem in our neighborhood. I respect Castilleja’s thoughtfulleadership and all their efforts to seek community input and feedback. It is a responsible proposal that should be approved! Anne Avis Waverley St Anne Avis aavis@mac.com 32 From:Sydney Larson To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Castilleja project Date:Sunday, August 11, 2019 6:32:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, I am writing to express my strong support for Castilleja's proposed development project.Castilleja is an integral member of the Palo Alto and our broader Silicon Valley community and has been for over 100 years. The education it provides young women is unparalleled and itwould be such an incredible opportunity for more women to experience. I hope that you will support this project. Best, Sydney Larson -- _____________________________________ Sydney Larsonsydney.a.larson@gmail.com 33 From:Joseph Rolfe To:Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja Expansion Date:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 11:30:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Planning & Transportation Commission Comments for the Regular Meeting August 14, 2019 Castilleja School expansion is the Action Item on the Agenda for this meeting. We fear that in the discussion of what stays and what gets demolished, etc., one greatand overarching question is not receiving attention. Castilleja has very ambitious plans for expansion. The school facility that would result does not even belong in this neighborhood. There are several major considerations: Castilleja is on a path of consistent growth and would wind up with the greatest student density of any public or private school in Palo Alto. The traffic and congestionimpact on the neighborhood would inevitably be horrendous. The great majority of pedagogical theory recommends separating the middle and high schools for many reasons. However, any discussions about plans to separate the middle and high school campuses have been summarily (and in our minds arrogantly) rejected. The plans indicate that Castilleja would change the entire nature of the neighborhood. Is this what we want for a very old residential neighborhood? We believe that there are far better ways for Castilleja to realize their ambitions. The best solution is tomove the campus completely to a new location. Have solutions to building a new campus such as a land swap with Stanford been explored? Stanford would welcome the chance to built faculty and staff housing on 6+ acres five blocks from campus. Possibly, a third-party developer might be interested. Also, Castilleja has shown thatthey are able to raise any amount of money for any project they would like to do. Castilleja has summarily (and in our minds arrogantly) rejected any discussion of building a new campus or splitting the campus. Finally, for this letter, the Castilleja girls would be poorly served by the required temporary buildings and facilities needed during the demolition and reconstruction of the current campus. We do not believe that the neighbors would tolerate five years of demolition work. We certainly believe in educating girls and young women, but this is a disruptive proposal that would change the neighborhood totally. There are far better ways for Castilleja to achieve its goals. Joe Rolfe 34 Diane Rolfe Emerson Street Palo Alto 35 From:James Poppy To:French, Amy; Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Castilleja garage ingress/egress needs to be studied by EIR Date:Sunday, August 11, 2019 9:29:53 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Ms. French, Why would the planning department allow Castilleja to even consider a single garage entrance on the Bryant Bike Boulevard, with egress back onto Bryant? Safe Routes to school told me that you are supposed to protect cyclists, but you appear to only be concerned with getting Castilleja’s plans approved. Please explain how the traffic flow would work. This must be studied carefully by the EIR. Currently it merely states that the DAILY volume of traffic is OK for a Bike Boulevard and does not mention the additional 100+ cars that would converge on the single entrance at peak times (or be avoided, leading to dangerous drop-offs on side streets). Sincerely, Jim Poppy Melville Ave. 36 From:Chris Bishop To:Castilleja Expansion Subject:Comments on the DEIR Date:Sunday, August 11, 2019 3:50:43 PM Attachments:Castilleja_Comments.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please see the attachment for my comments. A summary of my comments/requests are contained within that document but are repeated below. 1. Plan to post a crossing guard at the entrance to the parking structure to stop traffic toallow cyclists and pedestrians past. An existing traffic guard performs a similar dutyduring student drop-off times at the next driveway.2. Study the traffic flow along eastbound Embarcadero Road from (4) to (5). Highlight theincrease in traffic due to the proposed project.3. Apply the results of a study of the Embarcadero Road segment from (4) to (5) to thequeue times and queue lengths at Emerson Street turning onto Embarcadero Road (4)and at the egress of the parking structure (7).4. Consider whether the left-turn lane on Embarcadero Road to Bryant Street (5) needs tobe longer to avoid backups. If there is not enough room for cars to wait for the light,additional backups on Embarcadero Road should be expected.5. Install a protected bicycle path along the north side of Embarcadero Road from (5) to(2). This will allow cyclists to traverse from Bryant Street (5) to El Camino Real (1) andStanford University safely while avoiding the vehicles exiting from the proposedparking structure.6. Correct the apparent error in traffic volumes represented in Figure 7-5. The graphic forIntersection 7 indicates that 199 [187] (124) cars will exit the parking garage and turntoward Embarcadero Road. An additional 12 [22] (23) cars will continue straightthrough Emerson Street and continue toward Embarcadero Road. 5 [1] (4) cars will turnleft from Melville Avenue onto Emerson Street toward Embarcadero Road. The totalrates for the road segment from the parking structure egress (7) to Embarcadero Road(4) is therefore 216 [210] (151). There is no place for these cars to go except to turnright onto Embarcadero Road; thus they all must be accounted for at Intersection (4).Yet this graphic indicates totals of 160 [159] (235). Some cars have mysteriouslyvanished, and others materialized. While it is possible that the peak hours varies foreach of these intersections, there is no possible way that the peak rates for cars turningfrom Emerson Street onto Embarcadero Road (4) can drop below the peak rates for carsexiting the parking structure and turning right onto Emerson Street (7). Thank you, Chris Bishop 37 Area of Concern As a daily bicycle commuter past Castilleja School, my chief concern with the project is safety for myself and for Castilleja and Palo Alto High School students walking and cycling through the impacted areas. Description of My Existing Bicycle Commute My daily morning cycling route is eastbound on Embarcadero Road through the El Camino Real intersection (1), under the Alma Street overpass (2), across Emerson St (4), turning right onto the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard (5), and following it well past the study area. From the light at Town and Country and Palo Alto High School on Embarcadero Road through the Alma Street intersection (2), I always ride on the sidewalk, cross Kingsley Avenue at the pedestrian crosswalk, then proceed, depending on traffic, either on the road or on the sidewalk past Castilleja School to Bryant Street. My evening bicycle commute is northbound on Bryant Street, turning left onto Kellogg Avenue, turning right onto Emerson Street (9), proceeding past Melville Ave and the proposed parking garage egress (7), turning left onto the sidewalk at Embarcadero Road (4), proceeding under the Alma Avenue underpass (2), and crossing Embarcadero Road at either the pedestrian crosswalk at Palo Alto High School, the light for Town and Country and Palo Alto High School, or the light at El Camino Real (1). Difficulties of My Existing Bicycle Commute The existing commute has several difficulties for cyclists. From El Camino Real (1) along the length of Embarcadero Road there are no existing bicycle lanes. There are pedestrian sidewalks, but these are difficult for cyclists to access. For instance, when crossing El Camino Real, a cyclist can use the crosswalk, reach an island, traverse the island in a twisting and awkward fashion, cross a second pedestrian crosswalk with a danger of being hit by traffic turning right from El Camino Real onto Embarcadero Road, then twist again to the left onto the sidewalk and proceed along Embarcadero Road. Alternatively (and my preference), a cyclist can ride with traffic along the road without benefit of a bicycle lane. Reaching the light at Town and Country, the cyclist can again choose to ride on the sidewalk or ride with traffic. In this case, my preference is to use the sidewalk because the road is narrow and the traffic is fast; but the sidewalk does not follow Embarcadero Road. Instead, it forces the user to cross Kingsley Avenue at a crosswalk (at risk of being hit by traffic turning right from Embarcadero Road), turn left to follow Kingsley Avenue, then turn right to finally reach Embarcadero Road again. All-in-all, this stretch of Embarcadero was not designed with the cyclist in mind. The evening commute has another problem. Because there are no bicycle lanes on Embarcadero and because the traffic on Embarcadero Road in this area is so congested, riding a bicycle on westbound Embarcadero Road from Bryant Street (5) to the Alma Street overpass (2) would be very dangerous. Exiting Embarcadero Road at Alma Street (2) to use the sidewalk parallel to Embarcadero Road is also dangerous because of the speed of the other exiting traffic. Cycling from the light at Town and Country to the light at El Camino Road (1) is less dangerous because the traffic is generally stopped. Nevertheless, a safer path is to ride the wrong way down the sidewalk under the Alma Street overpass (2). Impact of the Proposed Project on My Cycling Experience 38 The proposed project will add several additional difficulties to my journey and, presumably, to the journeys of students at both Castilleja and Palo Alto High School. These difficulties arise from the presence of the parking structure. On the entrance side of the structure, an additional 50 to 100 cars will be turning from Embarcadero Road onto Bryant Street at all three peak times identified by the DEIR. All of these cars, plus all of the existing cars that now circle Castilleja to drop off students, will be crossing paths with cyclists and pedestrians as they enter the parking structure. If there is any backup in the parking structure, these cars may block the sidewalk and road preventing cyclists and pedestrians from passing. The presence of these turning cars, regardless of backups in the parking structure, creates dangerous situations and will significantly interfere with and is at odds with the purpose of the Ellen Fletcher Bicycle Boulevard (Bryant Street). Cars exiting the parking structure will primarily turn right onto Emerson Street (7) per the DEIR. They will then proceed to Embarcadero Road (4) where they will be forced to turn right. It is unfortunate that the DEIR did not include Embarcadero Road from Emerson Street (4) to Bryant Street (5) as a studied roadway segment (DEIR 7.1-5). By my analysis from the maps included at the end of the DEIR section 7, some additional 200 cars per hours will traverse this section eastbound, an increase of some 20% along an already deficient section of road. Furthermore, that right turn from Emerson Street onto Embarcadero Road (4) is difficult because of the speed the cars on Embarcadero Road and the acute angle of the turn. It is difficult to see how cars would not back up at this intersection thus impacting the egress from the parking structure and the inflow of vehicles at the entrance of the parking structure. The DEIR made a significant assumption (7.3-35) that traffic had to flow smoothly from the egress of the garage in order to prevent backups at the entrance. It reports the expected queue lengths both at Embarcadero Road (4) and at the egress of the parking structure (7) (DEIR 7.3-34). However, it is unclear that the DEIR accounts for the total increase in volume on Embarcadero Road due to the project and thus may underestimate the queue times and queue lengths. This 20% traffic increase on Embarcadero Road could be avoided if the flow through the parking garage were reversed. Vehicles could enter from the Emerson Street side then exit and be forced to turn right at the Bryant Street side, then left at Churchill Avenue, and finally turning right onto Embarcadero Road. Although there may be practical reasons why such a traffic pattern would not work, it is worth understanding the pros and cons. As mentioned, a pro is reducing traffic on Embarcadero Road. A second pro is that school traffic must turn right from Embarcadero Road onto Emerson Street as there would be no way to turn left from Embarcadero Road. This is a benefit when one considers that under the plan proposed, an additional 8 to 20 cars per hour will turn left from Embarcadero Road onto Bryant Street (5). The existing usage is 21 to 44 cars yielding existing plus project rates of 29 to 64 cars per hour. If the light has a 3-minute cycle (I have not timed it), a 64 car rate means that about 3 cars will be trying to turn left at every light cycle on average, sometimes more, sometimes less. The left-turn lane there is short and may lead to additional backups on the already congested Embarcadero Road, and the impact of this on Embarcadero Road traffic flow has apparently not been assessed. I have already mentioned how cars turning into the parking structure will cross paths with me and every other cyclist and pedestrian traveling south on Bryant Street creating a dangerous intersection and how that danger may increase because of slow egress on the Emerson Street side. A similar situation exists for cyclists and pedestrians traveling northbound on Emerson Street past Kellogg (9) and particularly 39 Melville (7). Drivers sitting in a backup become impatient, and the tendency is to force one’s way onto the street in front of oncoming traffic in an attempt to take one’s turn. As a cyclist who commutes along Emerson Street, I would not be waiting to turn right onto Embarcadero Road (4). Instead, I would want to turn left onto the sidewalk parallel to Embarcadero Road. If there were bicycle paths along the north side of Embarcadero Road from Bryant Street (5) to the Alma Street overpass (2), I would not need to use Emerson Street. My current options are a choice between a bad idea (turning left from Emerson Street the wrong way onto the Embarcadero Road sidewalk) and a terrible idea (turning left from Bryant Street (5) and cycling on Embarcadero Road). Under the proposed project those two choices degrade even further. Suggestions for Further Study and Plan Improvements To mitigate the existing and project-induced risks, I ask that the following steps be taken. 1. Plan to post a crossing guard at the entrance to the parking structure to stop traffic to allow cyclists and pedestrians past. An existing traffic guard performs a similar duty during student drop-off times at the next driveway. 2. Study the traffic flow along eastbound Embarcadero Road from (4) to (5). Highlight the increase in traffic due to the proposed project. 3. Apply the results of a study of the Embarcadero Road segment from (4) to (5) to the queue times and queue lengths at Emerson Street turning onto Embarcadero Road (4) and at the egress of the parking structure (7). 4. Consider whether the left-turn lane on Embarcadero Road to Bryant Street (5) needs to be longer to avoid backups. If there is not enough room for cars to wait for the light, additional backups on Embarcadero Road should be expected. 5. Install a protected bicycle path along the north side of Embarcadero Road from (5) to (2). This will allow cyclists to traverse from Bryant Street (5) to El Camino Real (1) and Stanford University safely while avoiding the vehicles exiting from the proposed parking structure. 6. Correct the apparent error in traffic volumes represented in Figure 7-5. The graphic for Intersection 7 indicates that 199 [187] (124) cars will exit the parking garage and turn toward Embarcadero Road. An additional 12 [22] (23) cars will continue straight through Emerson Street and continue toward Embarcadero Road. 5 [1] (4) cars will turn left from Melville Avenue onto Emerson Street toward Embarcadero Road. The total rates for the road segment from the parking structure egress (7) to Embarcadero Road (4) is therefore 216 [210] (151). There is no place for these cars to go except to turn right onto Embarcadero Road; thus they all must be accounted for at Intersection (4). Yet this graphic indicates totals of 160 [159] (235). Some cars have mysteriously vanished, and others materialized. While it is possible that the peak hours varies for each of these intersections, there is no possible way that the peak rates for cars turning from Emerson Street onto Embarcadero Road (4) can drop below the peak rates for cars exiting the parking structure and turning right onto Emerson Street (7). Thank You, Chris Bishop 40 41 From:Bill Schmarzo To:Castilleja Expansion; Planning Commission; Council, City; William Schmarzo Subject:Learnings from Crystal Springs with respect to Castilleja expansion demands Date:Saturday, August 10, 2019 6:44:51 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Crystal Springs (CSUS) and the Belmont City Council found a way for Crystal Springs to be a net contributor (versus a net debtor) to the community. In particular, you might find the following paragraph relevantto the Castilleja expansion demands. CSUS agreed to give the city a one-time $1 million payment, $250,000 a year in-lieu of property taxes increased for inflation, have a robust as well as enforceable traffic demand management plan, install a traffic signal at South Road and Ralston Avenue and stagger its start times so as not to align with other local schools. I'd hope that the Palo Alto City Council is as effective as the Belmont City Council in holding Castilleja likewise accountable. Private school seeks loan for expansion: Crystal Springs Uplands wants todevelop property in Belmont Private school seeks loan for expansion: CrystalSprings Uplands wants t... Bill Silverfarb Daily Journal Staff Crystal Springs Uplands School is seeking a $32 million tax-exemptloan to pay for the new middle school campus ... 42 From:YORIKO KISHIMOTO To:Castilleja Expansion Subject:DEIR comment: Castilleja expansion Date:Saturday, August 10, 2019 1:22:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To: Planning Director, Planning and Transportation Commission From: Yoriko Kishimoto, neighbor of Castilleja School Re: comments on DEIR Overall, I find the school overreaching in its goals to expand in an R-1 neighborhood. I am a neighbor across the street and also a former parent of two girls who attended middle school there. * Please don’t reject “Partial off-site relocation” as a feasible (and preferred) alternative. Many schools have separate campuses for middle school vs high school - in fact, there are very few schools that combine the two. As a second alternative, alternative 3 (reduced enrollment and reduced parking) is preferable to the school proposal but I still see no reason why the city should allow expanding over its current student count. Here are some comments/corrections for the DEIR: * First, factual corrections please. p. 3-5 and 4-2 “The project site is located in a residential neighborhood, with single-family residences present to the west, south, and east. Embarcadero Road, a four-lane main arterial road, forms the northern boundary of the project site. “ Make correction to note there are single -family residences on all FOUR sides - north as well as other sides. Embarcadero Rd is a RESIDENTIAL arterial as well as designated scenic road per Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. In fact, the single family neighborhood it faces to the north is a historic district of single family homes called Professorville and Embarcadero Road is a historic road, designed to be a two lane road. Embarcadero Rd in this segment is no wider than Bryant or other streets surrounding the school. It should read, “The project site is located in a residential neighborhood, with single-family residences present on all four sides”. My comments: Demolishing two single family homes (SFH) for commercial is an encroachment into R-1 zoning Merging parcels make it possible to create more massive, large-scale project in R-1 Variance - what will below-grade setbacks on Embarcadero do for the tree root health of street trees? Proposed condition of 90 special events, including 40 with over 100 guests is not compatible with this zoning Where is offsite drop-off/pick up and offsite parking and their impact? (At least this will disperse the impact so not to be as concentrated) Why double number of parking spaces to 142, more than city code requires? 3 year construction, including trucking 45,800 cubic yards of soil from site - please provide truck route for these trucks? How many truck loads is this estimated to be? Require permanent conservation or public open space easement on Spieker Field and proposed “private park” - school will be tempted to return with proposal to add another campus here in a few years. Roof of underground parking being engineered to support weight of “temporary campus” Require public easement through Spieker Field, since it was public land. This would help with local 43 bike/ped access, especially if the streets become more congested for cars. School can add security between Spieker Field and campus. Explain proposed “signalization of Alma and Kingsley” - to allow left turns on Alma? Garage (underground or not) concentrates flow of traffic, opposite of dispersing impacts. Why reject “multiple direction” for garage exit? Why reject Alternatives 2 (Partial offsite alternative) or #6. Why no data or analysis of Embarcadero Rd, especially within context of Stanford general use permit or Caltrain rail crossing studies? The DEIR summarizes it: “In summary, the proposed Castilleja School Project would have a significant impact associated with the potential to exacerbate existing land use conflicts between the school and itsresidential neighborhood by increasing the disturbance to neighbors associated with special events,increasing traffic volumes in the project vicinity, and generating noise levels that could exceed theMunicipal Code standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4a would reduce the project’s significantland use compatibility impacts related to special events and implementation of Mitigation Measures 8a and8b would reduce the project’s significant land use compatibility impacts associated with noise.Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7a would reduce the project’s significant land use compatibilityimpacts associated with increased traffic volumes on residential streets but would not be sufficient to reducethe impact to a less than significant level. Thus, the project’s impacts associated with land useincompatibility would remain significant and unavoidable.” Please do not feel obligated to approve all projects brought to the city council. 44 From:Scott Kepner To:Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja EIR draft application Date:Friday, August 9, 2019 4:49:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto Planning Team, I have read the Castilleja draft EIR, (very long) and I am impressed at howcompletely Castilleja has mitigated the impacts to its neighborhood. The Noise and the Traffic will be significantly reduced as soon as they can complete these improvements. I applaud their efforts, please allow them to complete the mitigation and new facility as soon as possible. Scott Kepner Village Investment Partners, L.P. 415 227 2209 office scott@villageprop.com 45 From:Bob Kocher To:Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja supporter Date:Friday, August 9, 2019 7:05:30 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Planning Commission of Palo Alto, Our family is an Old Palo Alto neighbor to Castilleja, living on Emerson Street for the past 9 years, and we are supportive of Castilleja’s new campus. Having an exceptional school in our community is an asset – attracting talented girls and families, increasing engagement and volunteer work in our community, and adding vibrancy to our neighborhood. We have been impressed by Castilleja’s sensitivity to the neighborhood. Castilleja makes a great effort to minimize traffic, on-street parking, and adapting their redevelopment plans to minimize impact on our community. Castilleja has done a good job at meaningfully reducing traffic by creating car pools, using of CalTrain and buses, and by encouraging biking. Our community is benefitting from the investments in our community. We appreciate our neighbors rebuilding and improving their homes, Palo Alto investing in infrastructure, school, and parks, the growth of local businesses, and Stanford’s success attracting world class students and faculty. We should be thrilled that Castilleja is proposing to invest millions in our neighborhood to enhance one of the best girls school in the country. This is good for our property values, tax revenues for Palo Alto, and makes Palo Alto more attractive for families and businesses. When one reviews the plans, the thoughtfulness is impressive. The proposal is environmentally awesome, reduces noise and blends more gracefully into the neighborhood, and creates underground parking which reduces cars on the streets. I am confident that Castilleja will continue to be a good neighbor and enrich our community. Thank you for carefully overseeing the project on all of our behalf. Sincerely, Bob Kocher Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 46 From:Anne Email To:Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja parent opposed to underground garage. Date:Thursday, August 8, 2019 6:45:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ My two daughters attended Castilleja. Both started in sixth grade and continued through twelfth grade. They received an excellent education. In spite of my admiration for the school I am opposed to the construction of the underground garage. From reading the DEIR it is clear it will lead to dangerous situations for bikers and massive congestion in the surrounding neighborhood streets. In my opinion the school should look for alternatives if they want to expand enrollment. Anne McGee Dana Avenue Palo Alto Sent from my iPad 47 From:Melissa Beville Kepner To:Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja School Plan Date:Thursday, August 8, 2019 7:16:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City of Palo Alto, As a long time supporter of girls education in a world where educating girls to be strong, confident citizens is all the more important, I am writing to express my support for CastillejaSchool. The school needs to modernize and it's new plan will help bring women's education to the next generation. Please pass their proposal. Thank you. Regards,Melissa Kepner -- Melissa B. Kepner 48 From:Joseph McGee To:Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja Expansion Date:Thursday, August 8, 2019 7:43:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Members of the Planning Commission: I am opposed to the expansion of Castilleja because of the detrimental effects it will have on the neighborhoods surrounding the school. I have read the DEIR and it is clear that traffic congestion will markedly increase in the neighborhood, at a time when traffic congestion has been the worst that I have seen in 30 years as a resident of Palo Alto. By the way, both of my daughters attended Castilleja from 6th-12 grade. I admire the school and it's mission, but there are better ways to pursue that mission that would not harm the neighborhoods. The ripple effects from this project would extend far beyond the neighborhood immediately around the school. Castilleja needs to expand to an area removed from it's current location. Please do not let this project proceed. Thank you. Sincerely, Joseph McGee Dana Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 49 From:John Debs To:Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja DEIR Date:Thursday, August 8, 2019 8:32:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. We write to support Castilleja’s application. We live four blocks from the school and believe it is a privilege to have such a fine institution in our neighborhood. John and Catherine Debs 290 Lowell Sent from Mail for Windows 10 50 From:James Poppy To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Cc:gsheyner@paweekly.com Subject:Castilleja DEIR ignores bicycle safety on Bryant, re-routed traffic flow Date:Thursday, August 8, 2019 10:44:56 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Castilleja DEIR ignores bicycle safety on Bryant and re-routed traffic to a single garage entrance. Hello PTC, Please refer to the Castilleja DEIR Appendix E Traffic Impacts Analysis. The document does not address or measure the number of cyclists at peak times of the day, at Embarcadero and Bryant, Bryant and Kellogg, or Bryant and Churchill (which is already a dangerous intersection at peak school times with Paly). The document does not address the issue of traffic being re-routed from the current flow (surface level dropoffs on Bryant and on Kellogg) to a single subterranean entrance on Bryant, requiring a left-hand turn by motorists traveling south on Bryant who would have normally dropped off students on Kellogg. CURRENT TRAFFIC FLOW - 2 SURFACE-LEVEL DROPOFFS 51 With traffic re-routed to a single entrance, traffic will be allowed to converge from both directions on Kellogg -- west from Waverly, and east from Emerson/Alma. Currently, traffic can only approach the Kellogg dropoff point from the westbound direction. If cars approach the garage from eastbound Kellogg, they will have to negotiate a lefthand turn onto Bryant, into oncoming bikes and cars on Bryant, and from eastbound cars on Kellogg trying to turn right onto Bryant. PROPOSED TRAFFIC FLOW - 1 ENTRANCE FOR 5 APPROACHES 52 Therefore, the single garage entrance would be the destination for all cars from 5 different directions. How can that be safe for cyclists? The document only refers to the number of seconds (14) needed to avoid queuing on Bryant, but the document does not specify where the queuing occurs. Queuing could easily happen on both sides of Bryant, because cyclists also need to get through that area. Cyclists include commuters and students to high school and middle school. It is very easy to imagine how motorists would be discouraged from having to negotiate a street crowded with cars waiting to turn left across traffic and cyclists trying to get to their destination, and simply choose to drop off students on side streets. 53 The Appendix only refers to daily volumes of cars on Bryant, stating that it would remain under the 2,000 threshold of DAILY car trips. There will be at least 200 additional car trips per day with the proposed plan, and they would be concentrated during peak times. Bicycle traffic should be measured at peak commute and school times in order to accurately evaluate how the flow of cars into a single entrance would be impacted. Bicycle safety must be a priority. A revised traffic study must be done to evaluate the impact of re-routing traffic from 2 dropoffs, and how that will impact queuing on Bryant, and on Kellogg, as there will certainly be more cars traveling in all directions. Regards, Jim Poppy Melville Ave. 54 From:William F Fearon To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Castilleja School Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Date:Thursday, August 8, 2019 8:02:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Planning and Transportation Commission, I am writing to express my full support of Castilleja School’s Draft Environmental Impact Report. It appears that they have addressed the requirements of the City and have done their best to meet the demands of the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration, Bill Fearon 55 From:Hamilton Hitchings To:Planning Commission; Castilleja Expansion Cc:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion DEIR Public Comments Date:Thursday, August 8, 2019 3:16:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear PTC, The following are my comments to the Castilleja Expansion DEIR. Please limit the growth of the Castilleja Expansion to a maximum student body size of 500 students. Also please do not approve of the underground parking garage. For 12 years Castilleja exceeded its conditional use permit for student size and should not be now let off the hook on fully mitigating its impacts. Furthermore, only 25% of the student body comes from Palo Alto. The current student body size is more than large enough to handle all current and future Palo Altans students. Thus the expansion is for the sole benefit of out of town commuting students. Yet the DEIR admits there are significant unavoidable traffic impacts to Embarcadero, Alma andneighborhood streets, which will continue to compound over time. The best way to mitigate this is to limit the size of the expansion to 500 students and do all the proposed traffic mitigation. There is no reason Castilleja should not maintain or shrink their traffic footprint. Adding a garage with its only entrance into and out of it, onto Bryant Street, which is a bicycle boulevard is not only unsafe, but shows a serious lack of commitment to bicycle usage in the city. Bryant street bicycle boulevard is a direct feeder intodowntown Palo Alto and with so many cars entering and exiting the garage each day, will be a major set back for bicycle commuting in the city. We also need to protect our urban canopy and this project's plan to remove matureoak trees is an environmental step backwards. Thank you. Hamilton Hitchings 56 From:Elizabeth Upton To:Planning Commission; citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org; castillejaexpansion@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:In Support of Women Date:Thursday, August 8, 2019 6:18:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I wanted to email to show my support for Castilleja and their expansion efforts. Educating women should be a priority whenever possible. Palo Alto has the opportunity to be a rolemodel for other cities, let's make sure we take ownership for the success of future generations of women. Regards,-Elizabeth Upton 57 From:MEGAN BARTON To:Castilleja Expansion Subject:Please Prevent the Castilleja Expansion Date:Thursday, August 08, 2019 1:47:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Ms. French and the City of Palo Alto, Please, please, please reject the Castilleja expansion project. We live at 334 Lincoln Avenue and are already impacted by the Casti traffic every day they are in session. We are a family of avid bike riders and are constantly having close calls near Casti at the beginning and ending of the school day, the construction and finished single entrance garage would only make things worse. Parking on our streets is at capacity- even with the RPP. Why does Castilleja believe they deserve special preference in this R1 zone. If they want to expand they need to open a second location- just like all the other private schools have been doing. It is never ideal, but it is the only way to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood the schools are in. Please do not allow yourselves to be swayed by their campaign. We need you to protect our community and represent the home owners. Casti can move their whole campus somewhere if they feel they have outgrown their current site and want to remain one campus. I am happy to discuss live if you need more input from me. Sincerely, Megan Barton 415-309-4979 58 From:Judy Low To:Castilleja Expansion Subject:Castilleja Expansion Date:Saturday, July 13, 2019 9:35:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Ms. French, We are writing in opposition to Castilleja’s expansion. We have lived in Palo Alto for over 30 years and pass Castilleja at least twice a day. The traffic gets worse every year and it’s a daily bear to pass through Embarcadero. The traffic congestion can’t all be blamed on Castilleja but adding another 100+ students and newconstruction is just adding to the serious traffic problems. We are also opposed to Castilleja’s expansion because of their past behavior of increasing their enrollment against the agreement. How can we even consider expanding the enrollment after that illegal behavior? What kind of example does that set for their students? It tells us they can flaunt the rules and do what they want. It’s so disrespectful. The penalty they paid was insignificant to Castilleja. For Castilleja to portray the issues as supporting or not supporting women’s education is so disrespectful to Palo Alto. We all support women being educated, but what kind of education are they teaching when the school doesn’t even follow a contractual agreement to keep the enrollment numbers as agreed? Palo Alto provides an excellent opportunity for its female students already. We do not need more facilities…….and we do not need to provide the educational needs of non-residents. Castilleja has not been a good neighbor. Please do not let Castilleja expand or construct the new buildings. This is would have a negative impact on the neighborhoods and Palo Alto as a family city. Best regards, Kenneth & Judy LowRhodes Dr. 59