HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-26 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 26, 2020
Virtual Meeting
6:00 PM
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 956 5433 9410 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833
****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY***
Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20,
issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of COVID-19, this meeting will be
held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be
broadcast live on Cable TV Channel 26 and Midpen Media Center at
https://midpenmedia.org/local-tv/watch-now/.
Members of the public may comment by sending an email to
planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org or by attending the Zoom virtual
meeting to give live comments. Instructions for the Zoom meeting can be found
on the last page of this agenda.
TIME ESTIMATES
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the
meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,
to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may
be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best
manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public
Call to Order / Roll Call
Oral Communications
The public may speak on items not on the agenda. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up
to three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2,3
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
_______________________
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.
City Official Reports 6:00PM-6:15 PM
1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
Study Session
Public Comment is permitted. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three (3) minutes
per speaker.1,3
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
6:15PM-9:30 PM
2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: Castilleja School Project, 1310 Bryant Street, 1235
and 1263 Emerson Street [16PLN-00238]: Request by Castilleja School Foundation for
Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation to City Council on
Applications for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment to Increase the Student
Enrollment Cap to 540 Students with Phased Enrollment and Campus
Redevelopment, and a Variance to Replace Campus Gross Floor Area. The Project
(but not the Project Alternative) Requires Recommendation on a Variance for
Subterranean Encroachment Into the Embarcadero Road Special Setback and a
Tentative Map with Exception to Merge Three Parcels Where the Resulting Parcel
Would Further Exceed the Maximum Lot Size in the R-1(10,000) Zone District. Zone
District: R-1(10,000). Environmental Review: Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Published July 29, 2020; Draft EIR Published July 15, 2019. 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
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 Carolyn Templeton
Vice Chair Giselle Roohparvar
Commissioner Michael Alcheck
Commissioner Bart Hechtman
Commissioner Ed Lauing
Commissioner William Riggs
Commissioner Doria Summa
Get Informed and Be Engaged!
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel
26.
Public comment is encouraged. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org.
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.
_______________________
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.
Public Comment Instructions
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to
planning.commission@CityofPaloAlto.org
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below for the
appropriate meeting to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following
instructions carefully.
A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in-browser. If
using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser:
Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality
may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer.
B. You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify
you that it is your turn to speak.
C. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “raise hand”. The
moderator will activate and unmute attendees in turn. Speakers will be notified
shortly before they are called to speak. The Zoom application will prompt you to
unmute your microphone when it is your turn to speak.
D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow instructions B-E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
https://zoom.us/join
Meeting ID: 956 5433 9410 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 (you may need to exclude the
initial “1” depending on your phone service)
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 11552)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 8/26/2020
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
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 Vinh Nguyen (Vinhloc.Nguyen@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 26, 2020 PTC Meeting Schedule and Assignments (DOCX)
1
Packet Pg. 5
Planning & Transportation Commission
2020 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2020 Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/08/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Cancelled
1/29/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
2/12/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs
2/26/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
3/11/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Cancelled
3/25/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Cancelled
4/8/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Cancelled
4/15/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Cancelled
4/29/2020 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular Riggs
5/13/2020 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
5/27/2020 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
6/10/2020 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
6/24/2020 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
7/08/2020 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
7/29/2020 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Cancelled
8/12/2020 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
8/26/2020 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
9/9/2020 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular Roohparvar
9/30/2020 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
10/14/2020 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
10/28/2020 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
11/11/2020 6:00 PM Cancelled Cancelled Veteran’s Day
11/25/2020 6:00 PM Cancelled Cancelled Day Before Thanksgiving
12/09/2020 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
12/30/2020 6:00 PM Cancelled Cancelled Day Before New Year’s Eve
2020 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup)
January February March April May June
Doria Summa Billy Riggs Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Cari Templeton
Michael Alcheck Cari Templeton Ed Lauing Bart Hechtman Giselle Roohparvar Doria Summa
July August September October November December
Giselle Roohparvar Doria Summa Bart Hechtman Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing
Bart Hechtman Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Giselle Roohparvar
1.a
Packet Pg. 6
Planning & Transportation Commission
2020 Tentative Future Agenda
The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change:
Meeting Dates Topics
September 9, 2020 • Recommendation on Crescent Park Traffic Calming Pilot Project
Upcoming items:
Topics
• Recommendation on Castilleja Tentative Map, Conditional Use Permit and Variance
• Study Session on Parking Pricing
• Ordinance Amending 18.42.110 (Wireless Communication Facilities)
1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 10102)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/26/2020
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Castilleja Project and Final EIR
Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: Castilleja School Project,
1310 Bryant Street, 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street [16PLN-
00238]: Request by Castilleja School Foundation for Planning
and Transportation Commission Recommendation to City
Council on Applications for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Amendment to Increase the Student Enrollment Cap to 540
Students with Phased Enrollment and Campus Redevelopment,
and a Variance to Replace Campus Gross Floor Area. The
Project (but not the Project Alternative) Requires
Recommendation on a Variance for Subterranean
Encroachment Into the Embarcadero Road Special Setback and
a Tentative Map with Exception to Merge Three Parcels Where
the Resulting Parcel Would Further Exceed the Maximum Lot
Size in the R-1(10,000) Zone District. Zone District: R-
1(10,000). Environmental Review: Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) Published July 29, 2020; Draft EIR Published July
15, 2019. 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) take the following
action(s):
1. Conduct a public hearing and provide direction to staff on the following application
requests:
a. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to increase enrollment to 540 students (phased
over time) and other operational considerations including an enhanced
2
Packet Pg. 8
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
transportation demand management (TDM) program, and
b. Variance to allow replacement and reconfiguration of existing gross floor area
(GFA) in non-complying facilities;
c. Setback encroachment Variance for the Project’s subterranean garage;
d. Tentative Map with Exception associated with the Project;
2. Consider the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) published July 29, 2020; and
3. Continue the hearing to a date uncertain.
Report Summary
The Castilleja School Foundation is the Applicant. Castilleja School is a private school providing
education for girls from sixth through 12th grade. The campus, located in a residential area, is
currently subject to a conditional use permit (CUP); the CUP limits student enrollment,
regulates the frequency and size of school events and includes a TDM program and other
operational considerations. Castilleja seeks an amendment to its current land use entitlements
to expand student enrollment and redevelop portions of its campus.
To implement these changes, several land use applications are required. These will be reviewed
by the City’s Historic Resources Board (HRB), Architectural Review Board (ARB), Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC), and City Council. Each board or commission has specific
focus areas, and Council will consider and make a final determination on all aspects of the
project, including the EIR.
This report provides a brief background and history of the site and the neighborhood context;
provides a project overview detailing the necessary the applications and process for review;
and summarizes the environmental analysis prepared for the project and next process steps.
No action is expected from the PTC at this hearing, however, staff requests commissioner
feedback and direction to staff to prepare draft findings, and if appropriate, conditions of
approval.
Background
Founded in 1907 at 1121 Bryant Street, Castilleja School moved in 1910 to the 1310 Bryant
Street location and created a campus. The campus was initially bounded by Bryant and
Emerson Streets, and Kellogg and Melville Avenues. Decades later, Castilleja extended the
campus across Melville to the triangular block bounded by Emerson, Melville, and Embarcadero
for Castilleja’s athletics program. The campus is located within a single-family residential
neighborhood zoned R-1(10,000). Over the years the school has demolished most of the
original buildings, constructed new ones, and increased enrollment.
CUP History
The City first issued a CUP to Castilleja School in 1960, and there have been seven amendments
since. In 1992, the City abandoned the Melville Avenue right of way, approved a Tentative map
and CUP amendment. This CUP enabled the abandoned street’s use for school purposes,
2
Packet Pg. 9
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
reinstituted the 6th grade level, and required Castilleja to create a 28-space parking lot and TDM
program. The 1995 amendment enabled dormitory conversions and established a 385-student
enrollment cap. The most recent CUP amendment, issued in 2006 along with an Architectural
Review approval, enabled the gym replacement with its deep basement.
The current CUP1 imposes several requirements intended to minimize the impact of school
operations to the adjacent residential neighborhood:
A school enrollment cap of 415 students;
Regular neighborhood meetings;
TDM plan implementation and monitoring; and
Restrictions on the number and size of the school’s special events.
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. The current enrollment for
the Fall 2020 term is 426 students.
The Applicant filed the 2016 CUP application with the City to increase enrollment and
redevelop the site including a new academic building providing 32 classrooms. The Applicant
filed additional planning applications as staff processed the CUP application. The project
evolved to include multiple entitlement requests, as staff reviewed the project for compliance
with the Zoning Code (Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code).
EIR
Staff published the Draft EIR in July 2019, and in August 2019, the PTC conducted a hearing
enabling comments on the document. Comments received from the community and
commission are addressed in the Final EIR transmitted to the PTC on July 30th. The responses to
comments made during the PTC August 2019 meeting are available online:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77806.
Project Alternative and Final EIR
In February this year, the applicant submitted plans for the Disbursed Circulation/ Reduced
Garage Alternative (aka Project Alternative).2 The Project Alternative is noted as Alternative 4 in
the Final EIR. It would generate fewer impacts than identified for the original Project, including
reduced traffic impacts; it involves distributed campus access, circulation, reduced garage
footprint, retention of Castilleja’s two Emerson Street homes and several Redwoods. Later
sections of this report expand on this alternative and discuss environmental findings of
alternatives listed in EIR Chapter 13.
Project Information
Owner: Castilleja School
1 CUPs applicable to student enrollment - view here http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53961
2 Alternative Project Plans: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78041
2
Packet Pg. 10
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 4
Architect: WRNS
Representative: Kathy Layendecker
Legal Counsel: Mindie Romanowsky
Property Information
Address: 1310 Bryant Street, and 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street (project site)
located within R-1 (10,000) Zone District) See Attachment A map
Neighborhood:
Lot Dimensions/Area:
Seale Addition (located south of Embarcadero Rd west of Alma St)
Campus parcel is 268,783 sf/ Combination of 3 parcels: 286,783 sf
Housing Inventory Site: No
Located w/in a Plume: No
Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes
Historic Resource(s): Yes. Local historic inventory Category 3 resource (Gunn
building/chapel). Other Castilleja buildings more than 45 years old
are not on the inventory and are not eligible for the California
Register of Historic Resources.
Existing Improvement(s): One-, two- and three-story buildings; oldest building is circa 1910
Existing Land Use(s): Private all-girls school and housing (Emerson address parcels)
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
North: single family residential; R-1(10,000) i.e. 10,000 sf min lot size
West: Single family residential; R-1 i.e. 6,000 sf minimum lot size
East: single family residential (R-1 10,000) South: single family
residential (R-1 10,000)
Special Setbacks: Embarcadero Road 24 feet
Aerial View of Property:
Source: Google Maps
Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines
Zoning Designation: R-1 (10,000), Single Family Residential with 10,000 sf min. lot size
(enables replacement of school campus with 24 additional homes)
Comp. Plan Designation: Single Family Residential
Context-Based Design: Not Applicable in R-1 Zoning Code Regulations
2
Packet Pg. 11
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 5
Downtown Urban Design: Not Applicable
SOFA II CAP: Not Applicable
Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable
ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Not Applicable
Proximity to Residential Yes, residences on project site and across all bounding streets
Located w/in AIA (Airport
Influence Area):
Not Applicable
Prior City Reviews & Action
City Council: Informational EIR scoping report/summary of comments June 2017
<http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58246>
PTC: Scoping Session March 8, 2017 staff report:
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56245>
DEIR August 2019 report3, excerpt minutes4 and video5
HRB: September 2019 Draft EIR report6, minutes7 and video8
ARB: August 20, 2020 staff report9 (video unavailable as of packet prep)
Project Overview
The Original Project and Project Alternative share many components, summarized below:
Phased increase in enrollment from 415 students to 540 students tied to a phased
construction schedule;
Demolition of five campus buildings (including the Leonard Ely Fine Arts Center fronting
Emerson Street, classroom and campus center buildings along Bryant and Kellogg);
Replacement of campus gross floor area from the demolished buildings into a new
academic building with classroom space below grade that does not count toward gross
floor area;
Construction of a subterranean garage accessed from the existing Bryant Street surface
parking lot with a two-way access ramp, and a one-way garage exit ramp 80 feet from
Emerson Street to a driveway opposite Melville Avenue; garage completion is associated
with the phase 1 student enrollment increase;
Proposed below grade pedestrian passage from the garage to campus buildings;
Demolition of an at-grade swimming pool and constructing of a new below-grade pool
and with a sound wall;
Provision for below-grade delivery and trash enclosures/waste pick-up with
reconstruction of the Circle in the center of the campus;
3 PTC August 14, 2019 staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72895
4 PTC August 14, 2019 excerpt minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77794
5 PTC August 14, 2019 video https://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-8142019/
6 HRB September 12, 2019 staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/73280
7 HRB September 12, 2019 excerpt minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77795
8 HRB September 12, 2019 video https://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-46-09122019/
9 ARB August 20, 2020 staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78021
2
Packet Pg. 12
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 6
Installation of new landscaping and fences; and
Enhanced Transportation Demand Management program.
Both the original Project and Project Alternative were studied in the final EIR. Because the
Project Alternative does not result in any new impacts and is less impactful than the original
Project, no additional public comment period is required. However, over the next several
months the public and planning boards and commissions will have an opportunity to review
and comment on the final EIR. The PTC will need to consider the final EIR as it makes is
recommendation on the project to the City Council.
The Project originally submitted in 2016 and studied as the primary project in the EIR differs
from the Project Alternative in the following ways:
Original Project
In addition to the shared components, the original Project includes the following components:
Merges the two Castilleja-owned Emerson Street parcels (at 1235 and 1263 Emerson)
with the campus parcel;
Demolishes the Emerson homes to create open space and large subterranean garage;
Constructs a subterranean garage that:
o Provides more than the required number of on-site parking spaces,
o Extends beneath the Embarcadero Road special setback and beneath the two
Emerson residential parcels, and
o Receives all peak hour student drop offs; and
Removes 31 trees, relocates 34 trees, and retains 99 trees in place; of these trees, seven
of the trees to be removed and five of the trees to be relocated are protected trees, and
three of the trees to be removed and one tree to be relocated are street trees.
Construction Phasing
The first phase of the Project includes the demolition of two houses owned by Castilleja on
Emerson and the merging of these parcels to construct the subterranean garage. The below
grade garage would extend beneath the two residential parcels and beneath the Embarcadero
Road special setback (subject to Council approval of a Variance). The Project’s garage would:
(1) increase on-site parking spaces beyond code requirement (taken together with
surface spaces), and
(2) modify campus circulation, re-routing drop-offs and pick-ups through the garage.
Following the first phase completion, the enrollment level is proposed to increase annually, up
to 490 students. Additional construction phases would be associated with requested student
enrollment caps of 520 and 540 students, as follows:
Phase 2 relocates the pool and increases enrollment to a maximum of 520 students; and
Phase 3 relocates deliveries and waste pick-ups further from the street and below grade,
reduces food service deliveries by 10%, and implements a sustainability plan; and
2
Packet Pg. 13
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 7
Phase 4 demolishes campus buildings, replaces removed GFA with the academic building
GFA, and increases enrollment to a maximum of 540 students.
Project Alternative
In addition to the shared components, the Applicant’s Project Alternative includes the following
components:
Reconfigures the subterranean garage footprint, reduces the overall size of the garage
and moves the underground garage structure outside the Embarcadero Road setback;
Retains Castilleja’s two residential structures on Emerson Street and the row of six
Redwood trees at the western edge of Spieker Field;
Distributes school traffic to three drop-off/pick-up locations around the campus
(retaining the Kellogg Avenue drop off driveway);
Removes the right-turn only restriction for vehicles exiting the garage, avoiding the
Project’s TIRE Index impact on Emerson Street, subject to mitigations that would avoid
creating any new TIRE Index impacts;
Provides on-site parking spaces meeting the code-required spaces;
Reduces the size of the Academic Building at the ground floor level by 754 square feet
(offset by increasing the building’s below-grade level by 800 square feet);
Includes site modifications; namely, reconstruction of the existing loop driveway on
Kellogg Avenue, in generally the same location; and
Retains 11 more trees than the Original Project.
Construction Phasing
The first phase of construction would include completion of the reduced subterranean garage
and landscaping. Once concluded, this would enable an increase of enrollment up to 490
students through an annual increase of 27 students. The subsequent phases for the Project
Alternative are the same as the subsequent phases for the Project.
Requested Entitlements
The following applications were filed to implement the original Project and will ultimately be
acted upon by the City Council.
Architectural Review: An architectural review application is required for the new
buildings, site planning/circulation, landscaping, building colors materials and design,
among other architecturally related factors; and for approval of the phased construction
project. The ARB began its review of these aspects of the project and will forward a
recommendation to the City Council. At the August 20th initial ARB hearing of the
project, the ARB: (1) signaled its preference for the Project Alternative to the original
Project, (2) offered several comments related to its purview, (3) requested further study
of/modifications to the new classroom building, and (4) requested more information on
a variety of topics. While not in the ARB’s purview, ARB comments included a concern
about phased enrollment increases; one ARB member noted a preference that
enrollment increases be tied to project completion. The ARB continued the hearing to a
2
Packet Pg. 14
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 8
date uncertain.
Conditional Use Permit Amendment: Private schools in the R1 zone require a
conditional use permit or CUP. The CUP is intended to regulate land uses that are
generally regarded as necessary or desirable; due to uniqueness of size, scope or
possible effect on public facilities or surrounding uses, certain uses require special
consideration and imposition of conditions, if approved. Accordingly, staff anticipates
that, if approved, Council would impose revised and new conditions related to
enrollment, size and frequency of school events, restrictions on hours and noise,
operational controls, requirements for TDM plan active monitoring and reporting as well
as penalties in the event of non-compliance. Approval conditions would help minimize
potential impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhood; therefore, the PTC is
encouraged to focus on this particular topic, should there be interest in recommending
approval of the CUP.
Variance for Gross Floor Area Replacement: This Variance is a request to replace above
ground gross floor area (GFA) on the existing campus parcel, which is currently non-
complying because it exceeds the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the R-1 zone. A
variance from the non-complying facilities regulations in PAMC Chapter 18.70 is needed
to allow replacement and reconfiguration of this floor area.
Variance for Setback Encroachment: A second Variance is requested for the Project, but
not the Project Alternative (aka Alternative 4). The Project’s subterranean garage would
encroach into the Embarcadero Road special setback below grade; the Project
Alternative’s reduced garage would be located outside this setback.
Tentative Map with Exception: The Tentative Map with Exception is associated with the
Project, but not required or requested with the Project Alternative. The request is to
increase the campus size to add the two Emerson Street parcels, coupled with
demolishing the two houses on these lots. The map application (incomplete) includes an
Exception request, because this R-1 (10,000) zoned Campus parcel exceeds the
maximum allowable lot size of 19,999 sf. The Project Alternative (Alternative 4) leaves
the two Emerson Street parcels and the houses on the lots unchanged.
Discussion
The PTC’s primary role is to review the applications for CUP Amendment, Variance(s), and
Tentative Map, and to recommend findings for approval or denial, as well as conditions of
approval, as applicable. The PTC’s review may include the project’s compliance with Zoning
Codes, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and conditions related to enrollment
increase, special events limitations, and TDM program monitoring.
Application Findings
The municipal code sets forth required findings that must be answered in the affirmative to
2
Packet Pg. 15
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 9
grant a CUP or Variance. As noted above, a CUP is required for certain land uses that may
generate additional impacts compared to other permitted land uses in the district; conditions
can be imposed to reduce the impact to an acceptable level. Both the original Project and the
Project Alternative (Alternative 4) require the approval of a CUP. There are two findings the
Commission must make to be able to support and forward a recommendation of approval to
the City Council; these state that the use will:
(1) Not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
(2) Be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
and the purposes of this title (Zoning).
As noted above, the CUP will address many aspects of the school’s operation including issues
related to increased enrollment, school operations and TDM plans, events and phased campus
modifications.
The PTC may wish to discuss the Applicant’s request to establish a temporary campus on
Spieker Field prior to and during construction of the Academic Building. The layout information
regarding the temporary campus, related to the Project design (Emerson houses removed) is
viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57679
The cutsheet showing the modular building design is viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64422. The applicant has not yet
submitted a revised layout of temporary campus buildings for the Project Alternative, which
retains the Emerson houses.
A Variance is a mechanism to grant relief when strict application of the zoning regulations
would subject development of a site to substantial hardships, constraints, or practical
difficulties that do not normally arise on other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district.
Variances may be granted to site development regulations (except limitations on residential
density and size of establishment) and to special requirements that apply to site development,
except provisions which restrict expansion of grandfathered uses.10
Castilleja School Foundation seeks a Variance from the provisions of PAMC 18.70.100, which
limit the ability of a property owner to replace non-complying facilities on a site and/or PAMC
18.12.040, which sets the maximum FAR for the R-1 zone.
To grant a Variance, the decision-making body must find that:
(1) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not
limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of
10 Castilleja’s buildings represent grandfathered facilities, but the private school use is not a “grandfathered use,”
because it remains a conditionally permitted use in the R-1 zone.
2
Packet Pg. 16
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 10
the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning
district as the subject property.
Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are:
(A) The personal circumstances of the property owner, and
(B) Any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property
owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the
same zoning designation.
(2) The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the
regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject
property, and
(3) The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
the purposes of this title (Zoning), and
(4) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience.
The original Project requires approval of two variances, one for the gross floor area, the second
for the encroachment into the special setback along Embarcadero. The Project Alternative only
requires a Variance for replacement of gross floor area. The applicant’s letter requesting the
Variance to replace gross floor area is available online at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64423.
The PTC may wish to comment on the Tentative Map with Exception application, which is still in
‘incomplete’ status and is not needed for the Applicant’s Project Alternative. Staff does not
recommend map approval. Exception findings would be difficult to make, given the resulting
loss of housing units. The loss of one or two housing units with the original Project is not
considered a CEQA impact (less than significant) but may still conflict with local policy. In 2005,
Council modified the R-1 single family residential district zoning regulation, ‘Purpose’, to include
this statement, “Community uses and facilities, such as churches and schools, should be limited
unless no net loss of housing would result.” Ord. 4869 § 14 (Exh. A [part]), 2005).
The Project Alternative retains the Emerson Street houses. If Council supports the Project
Alternative, the Applicant can propose a minor lot line adjustment if the size of the Castilleja
School parcel does not increase.
Based on Commission direction, staff will draft findings that reflect the Commission’s initial
guidance on the project.
2
Packet Pg. 17
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 11
Zoning Compliance Review
The EIR provides a detailed review of the Project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards
(development standards and parking standards) in Table 4-2, page 4-22. The EIR also analyzes
the Project Alternative but did not include a similar table showing its zoning compliance. A
summary table displaying the Project Alternative’s consistency with the applicable zoning
standards will be provided in the next PTC packet on this project. The proposed project
complies with all applicable codes or is seeking, through the requested permits, permission to
deviate from certain code standards in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
Comprehensive Plan Consistency Review
Staff and the City’s CEQA consultant reviewed the project for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs. EIR Chapter 4, Land Use and Planning,
provides full discussions of land use and planning policy. Table 4-1 or relevant Comprehensive
Plan policies begins on page 4-11. The table includes a citation for Policy T-5.6, which an ARB
member called out as relevant to the discussion of a subterranean garage. Policy T-5.6 states:
“Strongly encourage the use of below-grade or structured parking and explore mechanized
parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all types while minimizing negative
impacts including on groundwater and landscaping where feasible.”
Also note Final EIR Chapter 2, Master Response 6 contains additional discussion of the Draft EIR
analysis of the project’s potential impacts related to land use and planning. The Final EIR also
addresses the Project Alternative with respect to impacts, including analysis of traffic and
relevant measures, as well as policy consistency.
Environmental Analysis
This section is presented in three sub-sections to highlight aspects of the EIR, clarify the
enhanced TDM plan and traffic methodology, and reference mitigation measures related to
special events.
Final EIR
The PTC is asked to consider the EIR for this project.
The PTC members conducted a hearing on the Draft EIR hearing in August 2019, within the 60-
day public comment period. The Draft EIR addressed the planning entitlement applications
associated with the primary project (Project), and
Noted the Applicant’s eight project objectives;
Identified the Project’s ‘significant and unavoidable’ CEQA traffic impacts;
Provided explanations and mitigation measures to address other impacts;
Evaluated two on-site alternatives to the Project; these involved a 506-student cap
(91 students added to 415 students), fewer classrooms and garage size reductions;
one of these alternatives also retained Castilleja’s house at 1235 Emerson; and
Discussed six other project alternatives, rejected from further analysis; the ‘no
garage’ alternative, Alternative 5 in the updated EIR, was among these alternatives.
2
Packet Pg. 18
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 12
On July 30, 2020, staff notified the PTC members of the Final EIR publication. The Final EIR:
(i) Provides Master Responses (MRs) and Individual Responses to Draft EIR public
comments received during the 60-day review period that ended September 16, 2019;
(ii) Revises the Draft EIR with additional analysis, clarifies project alternatives, and adds two
alternatives (Alternatives 4 and 5, in Revised Chapter 13) discussed in Final EIR Chapter
2 (MRs 4 and 5);
(iii) Describes the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact (SOI) under CEQA (the TIRE11
Index increase on Emerson Street); the increase in daily traffic on Emerson Street
between Melville Avenue and Embarcadero Road (Impact 7-1 in the Draft EIR); and
(iv) Describes Alternative 4 (Project Alternative)’s ability to avoid significant CEQA impacts.
The Final EIR determined a significant and unavoidable CEQA impact would occur with the
original Project. Specifically, the TIRE impact on Emerson Street identified in the Draft EIR. This
would require Council to make a ‘statement of overriding consideration’ to approve the Project.
The Final EIR determined the Applicant’s Project Alternative (Alternative 4) would avoid the
TIRE impact on Emerson Street, and avoid creating a TIRE impact on other streets as well, given
specific distributed drop-off recommendations.
The Project Alternative (Alternative 4) is considered the ‘environmentally superior alternative’
to the Project; it changes the level of significance of CEQA impacts and would not require
Council to adopt a ‘Statement of Overriding Considerations’ to approve it. The Project
Alternative (Alternative 4) would enable achievement of all Project objectives, while:
addressing several community concerns; removing the significant and unavoidable CEQA traffic
impact of the Project; and enabling withdrawal of the Tentative Map application and Variance
request for a below grade garage encroachment into the Embarcadero Road Special Setback.
The revised Draft EIR/Final EIR include responses to comments on the Draft EIR, via individual
Responses to Comments (Chapter 3) and Master Responses (Chapter 2). There are 13 Master
Response (MR) sections.
a. 13 Master Responses Sections (Titles and Topics)
1. MR1, Project Description: garage circulation slight change, construction period/closure
of Embarcadero, Embarcadero during operation, bike/pedestrian circulation.
2. MR2, CUP: past violations (code compliance issue rather than a CEQA issue); baseline is
conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued, current CUP terms
and requirements, enforcement mechanisms, reporting for non-traffic issues.
3. MR3, Construction: traffic, noise, air quality.
4. MR4, Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative (“Project Alternative”):
description, impacts.
5. MR5, Project Alternatives: split campus, relocate, no garage, reduced enrollment,
retain/replace housing, disbursed drop-off/pick-up.
6. MR 6 Land Use and Planning Impacts: building style, compatibility, external effects
11 TIRE = Traffic Intrusion into Residential Environments
2
Packet Pg. 19
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 13
(traffic, noise) compatibility - special events, character of residential block, loss of
housing in face of housing demand citywide, FAR including garage rules.
7. MR7 Tree Impacts and Mitigation: tree loss and mitigation.
8. MR8 Aesthetics: tree loss, Embarcadero as scenic corridor, views of garage exit.
9. MR9 Historical Resources: Dudek methodology/conclusions, Lockey house, historic
district
10. MR10 Vehicle Transportation: Stanford Hospital, Stanford GUP, Signalization Kingsley,
Churchill Closure, Surface Circulation - including Embarcadero issues, TDM - existing and
proposed, effectiveness
11. MR11 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety: accident history, traffic impacts on bike boulevard,
proposed circulation routes
12. MR12 Garage Circulation: intended circulation, staff management, wheel stop time,
queueing, emergency response
13. MR13 Noise: pool, special events, heavy trucks and busses
b. EIR Chapter 4 Includes Comprehensive Plan Consistency Review
The EIR Chapter 4, Section 4.2, Regulatory Framework (pp. 4-3 to 4-5) notes relevant goals,
policies and programs. EIR Chapter 4, Section 4.3, Project Impacts, includes a Comprehensive
Plan consistency table (Table 4-1, see pp. 4-11 through 4-21).
The EIR Chapter notes the project could exacerbate existing land use conflicts between the
school and its residential neighborhood, due to:
any increases in special events that could cause disturbance to neighbors,
increasing traffic volumes in the project vicinity, and
generating noise levels that could exceed PAMC standards during project
construction and from use of the pool.
However, the EIR states that Mitigation Measures ensure the project would have less than
significant land use impacts, given that these measures would reduce the effects.
The EIR’s Land Use impacts requiring mitigation do not include the original Project’s removal of
housing units (considered a ‘less than significant’ loss). Table 4-1 reflects the project as
consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy L.2.8 regarding ‘displacement of existing residents’
for this reason: “the loss of these two housing units, one of which is currently being used for
housing, would not displace a substantial number of residents.”
c. Alternatives
Final EIR Chapter 2, Master Response 5, Project Alternatives provides further discussion of
several alternatives, and reasons for not carrying some alternatives forward in the EIR, or for
providing further analysis. The ‘off-site’ alternatives are discussed; these are:
The alternative for Castilleja to create a second campus, and
An alternative for Castilleja to relocate its entire campus.
d. No Garage Alternative
2
Packet Pg. 20
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 14
The PTC requested further analysis of a ‘no garage’ alternative. The ‘no garage’ alternative was
addressed in the Draft EIR under the subheading ‘Alternatives Considered but Rejected’; that is
because it would not avoid the project’s significant impacts and could increase impacts in
aesthetics and noise. Master Response 5 provides a description of a ‘no garage’ alternative. This
alternative – Alternative #5 in the revised Draft EIR Chapter 13 - was looked at further in
responses to comments; analysis is included in Draft EIR Chapter 13, Alternatives. The ‘no
garage’ alternative involves creation of a larger surface parking lot. The ‘no garage’ approach
reduced some impacts but increased others and did not change the level of significance of any
impacts. The Final EIR compares the environmental impacts of the ‘no garage’ alternative with
those of the Project.
Final EIR includes analysis in response to many Draft EIR comments, particularly to
address suggestions this alternative could reduce adverse effects to the
neighborhood from project construction and traffic volumes/patterns.
Under the ‘no garage’ alternative:
o the existing surface lot on Emerson Street next to the gym would be demolished
and/or replaced with the pool, as proposed with the Project.
o A new surface lot would be constructed where the two Emerson Street
residential structures are currently located, where the Project plans show open
space.
o A new surface lot would be twice as large as the existing surface lot to be
replaced by the pool.
e. Applicant’s Disbursed Drop Off/Reduced Garage Alternative
The Final EIR’s revised Transportation Impacts Analysis (TIA) studied the disbursed drop off
circulation the Applicant proposed in the Project Alternative submitted in February 2020. The
alternative:
• Resulted in a finding of TIRE impacts to other streets, given the distribution noted;
the TIA recommends different distribution to avoid TIRE impacts to other streets.
• Fixed the TIRE impact on Emerson (no longer a CEQA impact) by removing the
restriction to only turn right onto Emerson upon exiting the garage.
The Draft EIR analyzed the garage with respect to stormwater and found the garage would not
result in a significant impact since:
• The garage floor would be approximately 8 feet above the highest anticipated
groundwater level, as reported in the Geotechnical Investigation.
• The below-grade garage and all project site features are designed to incorporate
standard stormwater quality requirements. This includes routing all runoff to water
quality treatment facilities, such as bioswales, flow-through planters, and sand/oil
separators in drain inlets, as shown in the project site plans provided in Appendix B.
• There would not be any untreated runoff from any developed portions of the
project site, including the garage.
2
Packet Pg. 21
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 15
f. Kingsley and Alma Cumulative Local Impact
The Project Alternative does not improve upon the Project’s traffic impact at Kingsley and Alma
in the cumulative scenario. This would be considered a ‘significant local impact’ for both the
Project and Project Alternative rather than a “CEQA impact.” Local impacts are a policy
consideration, given the Comprehensive Plan policy and recent Council policy (adopted June 15,
2020), as noted in the Final EIR. Council will be able to consider a condition of approval to
remediate the significant local impact; as opposed to ‘mitigate’ the impact - terminology used
for reducing CEQA impacts. Staff will present a proposed condition addressing this impact for
the September 30, 2020 meeting.
g. Aesthetics
The EIR describes the Aesthetics of the Project and Project Alternative. The neighborhood’s
setting and character are considered in this topic. The EIR analysis determined the proposed
architectural style and landscaping will be compatible and appropriate to the neighborhood;
the ARB review process is the City’s public process to determine whether the project design
meets Architectural Review findings.
Enhanced TDM and Traffic Impacts
a. Baseline Traffic Conditions
The baseline traffic conditions within the area is discussed in the Draft EIR Chapter 7,
Transportation and Circulation. This chapter evaluates the Project impacts in comparison to the
baseline. Master Response 10 addresses comments regarding vehicle traffic associated with the
proposed Project, Stanford Hospital, and the potential closure of Churchill Avenue.
b. Enhanced TDM Plan
The PTC purview includes discussion of the Applicant’s proposed enhanced TDM plan. The
applicant’s proposed enhanced TDM plan is described in the EIR and relates to Mitigation
Measure (MM) #7a. The enhanced TDM plan is expected to reduce daily trips by between 12%
and 22%, which would drop the daily trip rate to between 2.4 and 2.1 trips per student. The
TDM plan includes monitoring and reporting requirements and identifies a range of strategies
that could be implemented at the school to meet defined performance standards included in
MM7a. The TDM plan is to achieve a maximum of 440 trips during each peak hour, a maximum
daily trip rate of 2.4 trips per student, and vehicle queues for drop-off and pick-up that do not
extend into Bryant Street.
Castilleja may need to make certain TDM measures mandatory. Data and analysis will be used
to determine whether the performance standards have been met and/or if adjustments to the
TDM strategies are warranted. It appears feasible for Castilleja to attain the peak hour standard
because at the current daily trip rate per student, the campus is projected to generate 443 AM
peak hour trips, thus only a slight reduction is needed to attain the performance standard. It is
expected that it will be feasible for Castilleja to attain the daily trip rate standard because the
existing daily trip rate is 2.74 trips per student, as shown in Draft EIR Table 7-4.
c. CEQA Traffic Impacts
2
Packet Pg. 22
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 16
The Council and PTC recently held study sessions (see PTC report) regarding California’s new
law modifying the transportation analysis methodology to determine CEQA traffic impacts.
Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 stipulate that
“a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.”
The new law establishes the use of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the method for determining
CEQA traffic impacts. The law disallows Level of Service (LOS) as the method to determine CEQA
impacts. The Draft EIR for the Castilleja Project found the Project would cause LOS impacts as
well as TIRE impacts on a segment of Emerson Street.
City Council’s June 15, 2020 Resolution adopted VMT methodologies (thresholds and screening
criteria) and a policy regarding LOS analysis (see City Manager Report). Council’s Local
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Policy is to evaluate LOS and other local roadway impacts
for community interest purposes (versus CEQA purposes). Staff and Council can ascertain
‘remediations’ (as differentiated from ‘mitigations’ related to CEQA impacts) for local impacts
generated from development projects on local roadways.
d. Vehicle circulation
Vehicular circulation and traffic impacts around Castilleja’s campus, and traffic impacts related
to the various project alternatives, are within the PTC’s purview and expertise. Traffic impacts
primarily relate to the CUP request for increased enrollment and condition compliance. To
some extent, the site designs for the Project and Project Alternative relate to such impacts. The
Draft EIR (published and circulated prior to the Council’s June actions), found the proposed
project would have a significant impact on traffic.
The Draft EIR identified two significant traffic impacts:
• The project would result in a significant increase in daily traffic volumes on one
segment of Emerson Street, as determined by the TIRE Index analysis (Impact 7-1);
and
• The project would increase delay at the intersection of Kingsley Avenue and Alma
Street, which meets the peak hour signal warrant, as determined by the level of
service (LOS) analysis (Impact 7-7).
The Traffic Impacts Study (TIS, EIR Appendix E) and Draft EIR Chapter 7, Transportation,
retained the LOS analysis for informational purposes and to address community concerns.
These documents were revised to delete any determinations of environmental impacts related
to LOS. With those changes, the Final EIR determined the Project’s only ‘significant and
unavoidable’ impact is the increase in the TIRE Index on Emerson Street between Melville
Avenue and Embarcadero Road (Impact 7-1). The Alternative Project can eliminate this
‘significant and unavoidable’ impact on this segment of Emerson Street; the impact it lessened
with adjusted distribution percentages for its disbursed drop-off locations around the campus.
e. Circulation - Construction Traffic
The EIR contained analysis and measures to address:
• construction traffic volumes,
2
Packet Pg. 23
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 17
• traffic management,
• potential noise disruption to students during construction,
• impacts of construction traffic on bicycle safety,
• construction encroachment into the public right-of-way that requires temporary
lane closures, and
• construction dust emissions.
The Final EIR provides additional information and clarification. Construction traffic from El
Camino Real to Alma can use this truck route portion of Embarcadero Road. Embarcadero Road
is an ‘arterial’ from El Camino Real to Alma. At Alma going east, Embarcadero Road becomes a
‘residential arterial’. Daily construction traffic would be less than the typical peak hour and daily
trips that would occur under operation of the project at full enrollment. References:
• Final EIR Chapter 2 MR describes anticipated construction phasing and schedule
presented in Draft EIR Chapter 3,
• Revised Draft EIR Chapters 3 and 7 demonstrate that construction would not
adversely affect traffic conditions in the vicinity, and
• The Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety responses (MR 11) address impacts of
construction traffic on bicycle safety.
f. Vehicular Circulation - Visibility at Embarcadero Curve
The Project’s drop-off traffic would exit onto Emerson and turn right to access Embarcadero,
which has a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The curve in Embarcadero Road, approximately
150 feet west of Emerson Street, can obscure views of oncoming vehicles. The EIR notes that
150 feet of distance will meet the stopping sight distance requirements for Embarcadero Road.
The EIR also notes the gaps in Embarcadero Road traffic would allow for right turns from
Emerson Street. References:
• Master Response 10, Vehicle Transportation, notes the updated TIS (Appendix E)
includes an analysis of existing traffic flows on eastbound Embarcadero Road
between Kingsley Avenue and Bryant Street that found traffic moves at an average
speed of 29 to 30 miles per hour during the AM, School PM, and PM peak hours.
• The TIS and Draft EIR Table 7-6 identify the Emerson/Embarcadero intersection
operates at acceptable levels of service and that the project would not cause the
level of service to degrade.
• The EIR notes that while there would be some congestion from vehicles waiting to
turn right onto Embarcadero Road, this approach to the intersection would continue
to operate consistent with City policy and standards.
g. Multi-Modal Access, Circulation and Parking
The EIR evaluated the project with respect to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. Castilleja
is located on a Safe Routes to School (Bryant Street). The project was analyzed with respect to
access to the site, on-site circulation, pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, parking sufficiency, bicycle
2
Packet Pg. 24
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 18
parking & access, and loading.
On August 20, 2020, the ARB reviewed the bicycle and pedestrian circulation on the site as it
relates to an AR finding focused on functionality of the design including the ease and safety of
on-site bicycle and pedestrian circulation, and convenience of vehicle access.
The Master Response regarding Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety (MR11) responds to comments
regarding bicycle safety given traffic volumes on local streets and potential conflicts with
vehicles at the project site frontages. The Project would reduce driveway curb cuts, which
would improve bicycle safety. The Project Alternative would retain the two curb cuts on Kellogg
Avenue. The Final EIR found other proposed project features would have no impact on bike and
pedestrian safety around the site.
h. Garage Circulation - Vehicle Access and Queues
The ARB also considered the site plans with respect to vehicle access and the functionality of
the garage design and surface parking lots to remain. The garage’s two underground lanes will
accommodate passenger vehicles and emergency response vehicles. That is, if one lane is
blocked during an emergency, access would be maintained with the second lane. If both lanes
are blocked at the Bryant entry, emergency vehicles would enter from the Emerson Street side.
Some members of the public have expressed concerns about drop off queues spilling out onto
local streets. The garage entrance queues are not expected to extend onto Bryant Street or
Embarcadero Road (see Draft EIR pages 7-32 through 7-34 discussion). The Final EIR amended
Mitigation Measure 7a to require monitoring and adjustment of the TDM plan, to ensure this
does not occur. Master Response 12, Garage Circulation, and Response to Comment C27.4-1
provide additional discussion of queues at the garage entrance.
i. Parking Design - Tandem Spaces
The existing campus staff surface lot currently includes six tandem spaces. These are in the staff
parking lot on the corner of Emerson and Kellogg. These six deeper spaces do not count toward
the existing spaces on campus. The Project and Project Alternative garage plans include tandem
car parking spaces as well; the deeper space of the tandem pair is not counted toward the
required parking spaces for a private school.
• The Project plans show 121 non-EVSE parking spaces (95 below grade parking spaces
and 26 surface lot spaces) plus ten EVSE parking spaces for 131 spaces. Of the ten
pair of tandem car spaces (20 parking spaces), the deeper ten spaces of the tandem
pair are not counted toward meeting required parking spaces. That is because they
cannot be accessed without coordination among the school staff. These deeper
spaces could be deleted from the plans and not affect the required parking count.
These ten deeper spaces aren’t required per the demand, based on analysis;
however, the City could enable their use for staff or event overflow parking
associated with the CUP. Without the ten deeper spaces, the 131 spaces represent
an increase of 49 car spaces over the existing 82 spaces on campus.
2
Packet Pg. 25
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 19
• The Project Alternative plan shows 104 on-site parking spaces, 78 below grade and
26 above grade. These numbers do not include the five deeper car spaces of five
tandem pairs; as with the Project, the deep spaces are not counted toward meeting
required parking. Without the deeper tandem spaces, the 104 spaces represent an
increase of 22 spaces over the existing 82 spaces. If Castilleja wishes to use these
five spaces of the tandem pair for staff parking or during special events, the City
could enable their use with the CUP.
Special Events Mitigation Measures
The EIR includes Mitigation Measure 4A providing mitigation for special events on campus. The
measure was modified in the Final EIR for clarification in response to comments (annotated in
underlined text). The PTC will consider the special events component of the CUP request and
may wish to begin discussions regarding further conditions for events such as athletic events. It
is worth noting, any competition with 50 or more guests – including athletes - may be viewed as
a special event.
Mitigation Measure 4a: The Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit shall include the following
restrictions for on-site special events:
(1) A special event is an event that is separate from the school’s daily educational
programs and includes a minimum of 50 guests. When a special event is held
during school hours, students and staff already onsite are not considered guests.
When a special event is held outside of school hours, all attendees (including
students and staff) are considered guests.
(2) There shall be a maximum of 90 special events each year.
(3) No special events may occur on campus on Sundays.
(4) Athletic competitions of any size may occur only on weekdays and shall be
complete by 8 pm.
(5) For special events that occur during school hours and have between 50 and 80
guests, Castilleja shall prepare a parking plan identifying the amount of on-site
parking not used by students and staff (in the below-grade parking garage, on
Spieker Field, and within surface parking lots), the amount of on-street parking
available around the project site’s frontage on Kellogg Avenue and Emerson
Street, additional on-street parking opportunities in the neighborhood, and
nearby park and ride parking lots that guests could use to facilitate ride sharing.
(6) For events that occur during school hours and have more than 80 guests,
Castilleja shall prepare a parking plan identifying the amount of on-site parking
not used by students and staff as well as one or more satellite parking locations
sufficient to provide at least one parking space for every 1.3 guests and provide
shuttle service for guests using those locations. Further, Castilleja shall retain
traffic monitors to help direct event traffic to appropriate parking locations.
2
Packet Pg. 26
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 20
(7) For events that occur outside of school hours and have fewer than 160 guests, all
parking shall occur on-site.
(8) For events that occur outside of school hours and have more than 160 guests,
Castilleja shall prepare a parking plan identifying the amount of on-site parking
not used by students and staff as well as one or more satellite parking locations
sufficient to provide at least one parking space for every 1.3 guests and provide
shuttle service for guests using those locations. Further, Castilleja shall retain
traffic monitors to help direct event traffic to appropriate parking locations.
Notification, Outreach & Comments
Notice of the ARB meeting was published in the Palo Alto Daily Post on August 14, 2020. The
City’s webpage for the project includes the Final EIR notice of publication, which includes
announcements of the August meetings. Website posts alert the community to news updates.
Staff mailed postcard notices of the Final EIR publication and August hearings July 28, 2020.
Pre-Application
A summary of Castilleja’s outreach efforts prior to submittal of the application is found on the
City’s website for this project: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school.asp.
Additional outreach meetings took place after application submittal. Staff has met with
neighbors separately, most recently in early 2020; these neighbors had presented concerns to
Council and the neighbors’ comments are linked to the project website.
Post-Application
Staff attended Castilleja School meeting in October 2016, in advance of a Redwood Tree
removal. Prior to that meeting, a tree removal permit was approved given the arborist report
of September 2016 (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54272).
Following the community meeting, a second arborist report was prepared for a neighbor (see
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54449). Many public comments on
the project were collected and shared in reports to the HRB, PTC and Council 2017-2019. Staff
forwarded comments on the IS/scope of the Draft EIR and Draft EIR received during the public
comment periods to the City’s consultant for consideration during preparation of the EIR.
Recent neighbor proposal for Embarcadero Access
Following the Final EIR publication, four neighbors (two on Bryant, two on Kellogg) proposed an
Embarcadero Road entrance and loop road internal to the campus. The group sent its plan via
email to the ARB and PTC. Staff noted this proposal would be addressed in a staff report.
An Embarcadero Road entrance/exit was studied prior to the Applicant’s June 2016 CUP
submittal; it was included in the 2016 submittal materials. The May 2016 Fehr and Peers memo
is viewable here (http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53963) as item #15. The
study looked at the viability of an Embarcadero entrance, with two alternatives, as well as the
2
Packet Pg. 27
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 21
alternative for entrance from Bryant and exit onto Emerson.
Both Embarcadero entrance/exit alternatives were viewed as having “a high probability of
queue spillback into the eastbound through lanes.” The results of this study, shared with former
Transportation and Planning Directors, led to the Applicant’s 2016 submittal. The 2016 study
included analysis of the subterranean garage with Bryant Street parking lot ingress ramp and
egress driveway onto Emerson Street.
The neighbor proposal differs in some ways from the alternatives studied in May 2016. While
the proposal could avoid queues on Embarcadero Road by providing queuing space onsite, it
would create a host of other issues that render it infeasible:
• The proposed circulation route would conflict with the proposed location for the pool.
Because the pool is already proposed to be 15’ below grade, a tunnel would need to be
very deep and it is unclear how or where it would resurface.
• There are several trees along the edge of the field that would be removed if an access
loop is placed where shown;
• This plan cuts into the playing field, which is already at a bare minimum size. This would
have severe impacts on the school’s athletics program;
• A large gate structure would seem out of place in this location, though the suggested
alternative could be accomplished without a gate.
Next Steps
Staff recommends the PTC continue the public hearing to a date uncertain and provide
direction to staff as appropriate to prepare draft findings for Commission consideration. If
approval is anticipated, staff will prepare draft conditions regulating enrollment, limits on
school events and activities, noise, TDM monitoring requirements and other operational
restrictions. The PTC may also provide specific direction to staff or general guidance on the type
of conditions it would expect to review in a draft Record of Land Use Action.
The Historic Resources Board is expected to review the project on September 10, 2020 to
consider the Final EIR and comment on modifications to the Category 3 resource on campus.
Staff will also return to the ARB at a future date to share the applicant’s response to the ARB’s
comments on August 20, 2020.
Report Author & Contact Information PTC Liaison & Contact Information
Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director
(650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2167
amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Location Map (DOCX)
2
Packet Pg. 28
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 22
• Attachment B: Project Plans on WebPage/Building Eye (DOCX)
• Attachment C: Neighbor's Castilleja Alternative Plan - Draft 8.04.2020 (PDF)
• Attachment D: Castilleja Email Comments (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 29
Location Map – Castilleja School
2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment B
Project Plans
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the
public online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/castilleja
and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City
Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue.
Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning
2. Search for “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”
2.b
Packet Pg. 31
August 4, 2020
Alternative plan to Castilleja’s proposed plan: The following alternative plan we propose has the ultimate goal of mitigating the extreme traffic environmental impacts stated in the FEIR and thereby benefiting the City, Castilleja, the neighborhood and bicycle riders. The plan is to create a “Castilleja Educational Village” with traffic flow into and out of the Village from Embarcadero.
Plan Benefits - Immediate: The plan would dramatically improve bike safety along the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard adjacent to Castilleja by eliminating the interaction of cars with bicycles and pedestrians. The plan enhances Castilleja’s concept of preserving their historic presence and permits them to grow in a unified and self-contained 6 acre educational village, while being a congenial neighbor without adding massive traffic and parking issues. The plan leads to better traffic management, not more traffic, on Embarcadero Road, and would enhance safety for bicyclists and pedestrians crossing Embarcadero Road along Bryant Street.
Implementation Plan: All of these benefits can readily and realistically be achieved with minimal adjustment to existing development plans by Castilleja and the City (e.g. future high speed rail).
Castilleja: 1.Castilleja would adjust their design to incorporate a historic "Castilleja Gate” (i.e.similar to UC Berkeley’s Sather Gate) along Embarcadero Road thru which allCastilleja traffic would ingress and egress its Educational Village.2.Traffic entering the Village could be routed along an internal, extensive queueaccess route to accommodate cars and student drop-off/pick-up and give access toVillage parking. This can be done without any back-up of cars on Embarcadero.3.Parking in the Village could be accommodated in the current underground garageand potentially a larger underground garage under the Circle (new).4.Castilleja would revamp their design to eliminate entry to the Village fromsurrounding streets, thereby providing added space for buildings and campusactivities.
City: 1.The City would close both sides of the Bryant Street intersection at Embarcadero toall cars, and would install a limited traffic signal at the current intersection. Onlybikes, pedestrians and emergency vehicles could cross Embarcadero along BryantStreet by using this on-demand triggered signal.2.A controlled signal would be installed at the “Castilleja Gate" entrance. This wouldbecome the dominant signal on Embarcadero between Waverley and Emerson.Streets.3.Additional speed control signage/monitoring would be put along Embarcadero toenhance safety at the Castilleja Gate intersection.
2.c
Packet Pg. 32
August 4, 2020
Plan Benefits – Long term: 1.Improved quality of life: The plan would dramatically reduce traffic through theneighborhoods surrounding Castilleja thereby greatly enhancing quality of life inthese neighborhoods (compared to traffic in pre-Covid times and FEIRpredictions). Neighbors would not endure the projected 1000+ car trips/day alongwith shuttles and busses for Castilleja’s student pick-ups, drop-offs, faculty, staff,visitors and student trips, and daily garbage-truck pickups and 16-18 wheel truckdeliveries.2.Enhanced bicycle safety: The plan provides greater bike safety near Castilleja byeliminating the interaction of cars and bicycles at Bryant and Embarcadero. This isconsistent with the City’s stated goal of limiting traffic on the Bryant BicycleBoulevard. And, because residential streets would not be needed to access theCastilleja Village, this would dramatically improve bike safety on Emerson, Bryantand Kellogg streets3.Greater Castilleja autonomy: The plan would provide Castilleja greater flexibilityin their design, scheduling and handling of Village buildings, activities and events,with all Castilleja traffic flow and parking within the Village.4.Greater Embarcadero Traffic Safety: The plan would provide greater control oftraffic and safety for students and bicycles in the area around Castilleja with twoon demand signals. Traffic would flow more uniformly because signals would onlybe activated when needed. The Castilleja internal access road would be longenough to queue all student drop-offs and pick-ups to prevent back-up ontoEmbarcadero.
Added Bonuses: 1.Bike safety improved for Palo Alto HS students: If the Alma bicycle crossing ismoved from Churchill Ave. to Kellogg Avenue with high speed rail, then thisKellogg underpass/interchange would dramatically improve bicycle safety, if thereis no Castilleja traffic on Kellogg Ave.2.Future Castilleja traffic impediments removed:The Churchill/Embarcadero/Caltrain High Speed Rail dilemma is currently understudy. By containing all of Castilleja’s traffic to its Village entrance on Embarcaderoand keeping car traffic within the boundaries of its campus, this plan wouldremove any future impediment that Castilleja’s traffic might have on the finaloutcome of resolving the Churchill/Embarcadero/Caltrain/High Speed Railconflicts.The attached diagram illustrates one possible surface traffic flow diagram for the Castilleja Educational Village, based on the current Castilleja plan drawings. Other flow patterns are possible. Thank you for your time and attention in considering this alternative. Tom Shannon - 256 Kellogg Ave.Alan Cooper - 270 Kellogg Ave.Carla Befera - 1404 Bryant St.Bruce McLeod - 1404 Bryant St.
2.c
Packet Pg. 33
Red line shows one traffic flow possibility
(i.e. like Sather Gate at US Berkeley)
2.c
Packet Pg. 34
From:Hank Sousa
To:Architectural Review Board
Subject:Castilleja expansion
Date:Friday, August 21, 2020 11:11:53 AM
Attachments:ARB Hank Sousa comments.PDF
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Board Members,
A copy of my comments at yesterday's Castilleja hearing is attached.
Thank you for giving members of the public an opportunity to present their concerns about thesize and scope of the project.
Regards,
Hank Sousa
Melville Ave
2.d
Packet Pg. 35
August 20,202:.0 ARB meeting with Castillejil project on agenda
Hello Board Chair Baltay and fellow board nrembers:
Pl'lQL's stance from the beginning was no girrage, no demo of the school's two Emerson St. homes and
preservation of protected trees. The school's "no garage alternative" calls for the clemo of the two
homes substantially altering the community character leaving one private residence on thb corner of
Emerson & Embarcadero.
what vrle woukl like to see happen is the prr-'servation of the 85 parking spaces on the current campus.
That would require some redesign of the prrcposed new buildings but the "no garage alterndtive,,
already calls for a reduction in classroom space and lower student enrollment . This idea id in thel
revised DEIR section 13.8 Alternative 5 (pages 13-30 and 13-31). This reconfiguring of the OJitOings
utilizes "tucked under" parking. To go a bit f urther with that logic use the existing footprintd of thcl
currentbuildings. Anenrollmentof45O wouldmostlikelybemorepalatabletonearbyresidents.
Let's assume thre 86 spaces on campus are assigned trc workers and staff. The school would continue to
use off-site parking for some of the staff.
Nerxt- lert's address the single car drop offs . lf the school were to establish east and west side ,,kiss and
ride" drop off spo,ts where buses picked up l:he students there would be virtually no traffic issues
associated with the school except when large events ,occUr. The school could continue to pa{.k vehicles
on the playing I'ield for large events ( which r,rre would like to see retluced to 20 per year). Th! school has
yet to slhow a willingness to embrace an autlrentic shuttling program. The newly plannecl buildings have
state of the art environmental features. Building an underground garage is incongruous.
There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Use the current parking on the campus, reconfigure the
buildings, save thr: two Emerson St. residences, shuttle in the students, and continue to profide a high
quality r-'ducation to a student population that fits cornfortably within the site,
We'd like to see you recommend new buildirrgs that are less massive than the one planned
no underrground g,arage, and the embrace of authentic shuttling from drop off spots.
Th
,fr,*r-ta-.,
Harrk Sousa 160 lVlelville Ave.
'or Kellogg,
2.d
Packet Pg. 36
2.d
Packet Pg. 37
From:Andie Reed
To:Architectural Review Board
Subject:Castilleja expansion
Date:Friday, August 21, 2020 10:59:19 AM
Attachments:Castilleja Expansion CUP&FloorArea.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Chair Baltay and Board Members,
I attach below my comments at yesterday's first ARB meeting. The school's attorney and
city staff dismissed our numbers, so I also attach documentation as to where you can findthe numbers I used in my speech. The Permitted Square Footage of 86,700 comes frompage 4 of the Ms. Romanowsky Request for Variance, dated March 2018, which I sentaround to everyone last week. The 116,000 requested square footage comes from PageG..001 of the current site plans.
We neighbors have been asking the school and the City to reduce the scope of theexpansion for many years, without any success. The DEIR forced the school to step backand retain houses and a few more trees; they did not do it out of respect for the neighbors. However, we are happy to see some recognition of the issues. The one point I added to myspeech yesterday and will again press is that, despite the LEED buildings and sustainablelandscaping and bioswales, there has never been a discussion about the undergroundgarage, and what that does to the water table, how is it environmentally sustainable, evenhow does the gate open, does it clang, how does the tunnel work? For 4 years we haveasked the school to have the garage architects appear at a meeting, and the school demurs,and did again for your meeting. WRNS is a fine architectural firm, but where is Archirender,who designed the garage? It gets completely ignored.
Thank you for your hard work on this tough job.
Andie Reed
--
Andie Reed CPA160 Melville Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
530-401-3809
2.d
Packet Pg. 38
To: ARB, Aug 20, 8:30 am
From: Andie Reed, Melville Ave, Palo Alto
Re: Castilleja expansion
CUP and floor area:
Castilleja operates in an R-1 zone under a Conditional Use Permit. These
conditions include number of students to be enrolled and number of events that
can be held on campus. The school has exceeded their Conditions on both of
these over the last many years, and yet this project that you are currently
reviewing asks for MORE students and MORE events. You have the difficult job
of deciding whether the City should bend new Conditions around the school’s
latest “business model” or instead require that the private tax-exempt school
adjust its goals to fit into the needs and interests of the residents of Palo Alto.
There is a variance being requested for an increase of 33% in Floor Area Ratio.
Current Muni Code allows 86,800 square feet above-grade floor area, and the
school is asking for 116,000 square feet, although if you include the underground
garage, which Muni Code appears to require, the increase is more like 70%. The
proposed modern-style building will loom large and is not compatible
architecturally with the surrounding small, older homes.
What is also important to note is another square footage increase not otherwise
apparent. Page G..001 of the current plans specifies that the total floor area,
above and below grade combined, currently existing is 160,200 square feet,
and the proposed is 192,200 square feet. The school is asking for an increase of
32,000 square feet of useable space, or 20% on this same 6 acre site where they
have successfully educated girls for many decades. That percentage increase
doubles when you include the underground garage as useable, active space.
No matter how you look at it, all of this increase in square footage is to
accommodate 30% more students, parents, staff, faculty, supporters and
volunteers so Castilleja can achieve its new operational model. Unless it can be
shown how this benefits Palo Alto, the Boards and Commissions reviewing this
project should request the school dramatically reduce its demands.
Thank you.
2.d
Packet Pg. 39
2.d
Packet Pg. 40
2.d
Packet Pg. 41
From:Andie Reed
To:Planning Commission
Cc:Hank Sousa
Subject:Castilleja Neighbors Summary Statement
Date:Friday, August 21, 2020 10:32:50 AM
Attachments:Castilleja Neighbors Summary Statement_2020.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Aug 21, 2020
Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners,
We are a loosely-organized group of neighbors of Castilleja who have been meeting and
working together over the past 4-5 years to limit the expansion plans.
Attached is an introduction to who we are and what many of our neighbors are in
agreement about, written by 10 of us who live on the surrounding streets. We have
gathered 50 signatures from the surrounding neighbors who agree with this statement, as
we see the project working its way through the system.
The attached Castilleja Neighbors Summary Statement will give you our perspective and
how we have tried to reasonably influence the process and have our concerns addressed.
Thank you,
Andie Reed
Hank Sousa
PNQL steering committee members
--
Andie Reed CPA
160 Melville Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301530-401-3809
2.d
Packet Pg. 42
Proposed Castilleja School Expansion
Summary Statement Prepared by Neighbors
Situation: Castilleja, a private middle and high school located in an R-1 neighborhood, has submitted to the City of Palo Alto
a proposal to significantly remodel its campus and increase enrollment by 30% (plus unspecified increases in faculty/staff).
Neighbors, who have already borne the brunt of the private school’s significant growth over many years, challenge
Castilleja’s plan to increase the size and scope of its operation on this very small parcel. We urge the City to deny approval of
an enrollment increase, and not permit the outsized redevelopment proposals, for the following reasons:
1. Traffic congestion, crowded street parking, bike safety concerns on Bryant St. Bike Blvd. Palo Alto seeks
fewer traffics issues, not more. 75% of Castilleja’s students and staff commute from outside Palo Alto, with 4
car trips/day/student (drop-off and pick-up) adding congestion to all our main arteries. The neighborhood absorbs
unrelenting impact from traffic, busses, parking, deliveries, events, sport meets, and more, on days, nights,
weekends, and throughout the summer.
2. Outsized nature of the project: The school is proposing 200,000 sf of buildings on a one-block (268,000 sf) lot.
For comparison, imagine a Costco … or two City Halls or Home Depots … located on one small block in a
residential neighborhood.
3. Castilleja’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is far more lenient than neighboring private schools’ permits.
Other private schools in Palo Alto and nearby towns are held to much stricter standards, such as specified hours of
operation, less density, few or no night events, and none allow an underground garage in a residential
neighborhood. Why is Castilleja exempt from similar conditions? No local private schools are permitted more than
20 events per year, Castilleja hosts 100+ events per year.
4. The City should enforce its own Muni Code/Comprehensive Plan statutes. Castilleja’s use does not satisfy the
City’s definition of an R-1 conditional use which per PAMC 18.76.10 will “not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience (in the vicinity)” and shall “be located and conducted in a manner in accord
with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.” The Comp Plan states that the city “seeks to promote community
/commercial uses but not at the expense and quality of the residential neighborhoods.” When the school was
founded, it was a small boarding school. Its growth and future plans far exceed what is appropriate for this site.
5. City’s prior directive assuring the neighborhood of no future expansion. In 2000, Palo Alto Planning Director
John Lusardi was forceful in his CUP approval letter to Castilleja: “The approved Conditional Use Permit does not
provide for any increase in students over 415, and any subsequent request for additional students will not be
favorably looked upon by the City. … the City is not willing to continue to approach increasing school enrollment for
Castilleja School in an incremental manner.” The neighbors did not realize this cap would be ignored by Castilleja
starting in 2001, and violations would go unenforced by the City. Why would the City ignore its own 2000 directive,
favoring the school’s desire to grow over the needs of Palo Alto residents?
6. Continuous Violation - Castilleja has exceeded its existing enrollment cap for the last 19 years, collecting millions
of dollars from over-enrollment. The City is unable to enforce CUP violations, and neighbors have no viable
enforcement or compliance leverage. Neighbors have no confidence that future CUP conditions will be met, nor that
conditions will be improved with a significant increase in students, plus accompanying parents, teachers, staff, and
visitors, coming daily to this small section of Palo Alto.
For years neighbors have asked the school to work together in good faith, asking the school to reduce enrollment to the
allowed level, and institute a robust shuttle by which ALL students/staff would be delivered to campus. Instead the school has
moved ahead with outsized plans, far more expansive than other schools are allowed (see chart attached.)
NO neighborhood would welcome this type of unbridled growth from a private entity in its midst. The City Council has an
obligation to protect and preserve the rights of its citizens, and to enforce its own codes.
We urge the City to oppose this application. If the school wishes to expand, the City should require it to follow the example of
other private schools and divide into two appropriately-sized campuses, or move to a larger location which will support as
2.d
Packet Pg. 43
many students as it desires, or require ALL arrivals/departures by shuttle from a satellite parking area, significantly reducing
the impact not only on this neighborhood, and the Bike Boulevard, but on all Palo Altans.
Thanks for your time and attention.
– Neighbors of Castilleja (surrounding blocks) July 2020
Al Kenrick Melville Ave Amber La Kellogg St Andie Reed Melville Ave Bill Schmarzo Emerson St Bill Powar Emerson St
Bruce McLeod Bryant St (SW corner Bryant and Kellogg) Carla Befera Bryant St (SW corner Bryant and Kellogg) Carolyn Schmarzo Emerson St Chi Wong Emerson St. Daniel Mitz Melville Ave David Quigley Emerson St. Debby Fife Emerson St Diane Rolfe Emerson St (NW corner Emerson and Kellogg)
Ed Williams Kellogg St Elizabeth Olsen Melville Ave Geegee Williams Kellogg St Han Macy Melville Ave Hank Sousa Melville Ave
Jim Poppy Melville Ave Joan MacDaniels Emerson St Joseph Rolfe Emerson St (NW corner Emerson and Kellogg)
Kathleen Judge Churchill St Kathy Croce Emerson St (SW corner Melville and Emerson)
Kimberley Wong Emerson St (NW corner Melville & Emerson)
Lee Collins Embarcadero St Marie Macy Melville Ave Mary Joy Macy Melville Ave Mary Sylvester Melville Ave Matt Croce Emerson St (SW corner Melville and Emerson)
Midori Aogaichi Churchill St Nancy Strom Melville Ave Nelson Ng Emerson St Neva Yarkin Churchill St Pam McCroskey Emerson St PatriciaWong Emerson St Richard Mamelok, MD Churchill St Rob Levitsky Emerson Street Robert Yamashita Bryant St (NE corner Bryant and Kellogg) Val Steil Kellogg St Vic Befera Bryant St Wally Whittier Bryant St William Macy Melville Ave
2.d
Packet Pg. 44
Ying Cui Waverley St (SW corner Embarc & Waverley)
Yoriko Kishimoto Embarcadero St Yuri Yamashita Bryant St (NE corner Bryant and Kellogg)
2.d
Packet Pg. 45
From:Gary Paladin
To:Architectural Review Board
Subject:Comments Re Castilleja Master Plan Delivered 8/20 to ARB
Date:Friday, August 21, 2020 10:01:20 AM
Attachments:Casti Master Plan Comments - 08-21-20.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Architecture Review Board:
This forwards my comments made at yesterday's meeting discussing the Castilleja
campus Master Plan. The attached is for the record.
Regards,
Gary Paladin
Strategic Business ConsultingPalo Alto, CA || gary.e.paladin@gmail.com || (650) 302-8902
2.d
Packet Pg. 46
Gary Paladin
1533 Dana Avenue (650) 302-8902
Palo Alto, CA 94303 gary.e.paladin@gmail.com
Comments Delivered 8/21/20 to PA ARB re: Castilleja Campus Master Plan
Good morning.
I believe Castilleja deserves recognition for the effort it has put into developing a
Master Plan for its campus. This Plan aims to reduce the school’s environmental
footprint in our community, and establishes a benchmark of sustainability that
other institutions will want to model.
Castilleja’s Plan aims to meet or surpass both California’s and Palo Alto’s
aggressive sustainability goals, with innovative solutions for a clean and
sustainable future.
For starters, outdated campus structures will be disassembled rather than razed,
to maximize recycling and utilization of existing building materials. And new
construction will incorporate only non-hazardous, responsibly-sourced green
building materials.
The future campus is designed to be completely self-sustainable, reliant upon
onsite-generated energy from solar panels on building rooftops, and heat
recovery systems. With the exception of its science labs, the campus will be
entirely fossil fuel-free.
Planned installations of a high-efficiency recycled water infrastructure and
drought-resistant landscaping, and efforts to preserve existing trees on campus,
will also contribute to the school’s self-sustainability.
Castilleja’s Plan demonstrates commitment to the environment and community.
And plans to build environmental education into the curriculum, demonstrate
commitment to educating young women to become environmental stewards and
leaders.
Thank you for considering my comments.
2.d
Packet Pg. 47
From:Hyunkyu Lee
To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Castilleja Expansion
Subject:Objection to Castelleja expansion
Date:Friday, August 21, 2020 9:32:53 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I would like to thank you for all your hard work.
I have reviewed the Castilleja expansion plan and would like to object to its plan from
Kellogg resident's perspective. I found that there is no community benefit to
Castelleja's expansion plan for Palo Alto, especially for the residents living around the
Castilleja school.
1. Only 25% of Castelleja's students come from Palo Alto.
Castilleja sits on just over 6 acres in a R-1 residential neighborhood, upon
which they pay no taxes. They have been over-enrolled (from which
they’ve banked over $10 million) for 19 years. The school is requesting a
30% increase in enrollment and 90 events per school year, which needs to
be significantly reduced to levels comparable to other schools in R-1neighborhoods.
2. Construction of a Costco-Sized Facility
Castilleja’s plans call for the construction of an oversized, boxy structure,
which does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood and causes
dramatic densification of one residential block.
3. Destruction of the Natural Environment
A bucolic residential neighborhood will now lose many protected oaks and
redwoods, some chopped down and some “re-located”, in what will be a
futile attempt, to a new location on the campus. The health of Palo Alto’s
carbon-reducing tree canopy is further destroyed.
4. Underground Garage, Threat to Pedestrians and Cyclists
Proposed 440 car trips during 2 peak hours alone (total in excess of 1400
daily car trips) will overwhelm the neighborhood. Cars entering and exiting
the garage would clog neighborhood streets and jeopardize cyclists on the
Bryant Street bike boulevard.
5. Precedent-Setting Project for Palo Alto Neighborhoods
2.d
Packet Pg. 48
If this project is approved, what does this mean for Palo Alto’s
neighborhoods? Would YOU want a commercial underground garage exit
across from your home, constant weekday traffic and off-hour events, and
5 years of commercial construction?
Given all these concerns, I strongly object to Castellija expansion plan.
There is NO community benefit from the plan.
Best regard,
Kyu Lee (151 Kellogg)
2.d
Packet Pg. 49
From:Cath Garber
To:Architectural Review Board
Subject:Castilleja"s EIR - comments from today
Date:Thursday, August 20, 2020 4:02:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
To the ARB Board,
I thought it might be helpful to have a copy of my comments that I presented this morning
to the board. See below.
I would like to share my thoughts regarding the final EIR for Castilleja
I am a principal at Fergus Garber Architects and have been practicing architecture in
Palo Alto since the mid 90’s. I have designed a number of new homes in the
neighborhood - 1 each on Kellogg, Emerson and Waverley and 2 on Cowper. I am
currently working on two historic remodels across the street on Embarcadero
I live next to Green Middle school and my children, both boys attended Palo Alto schools.
My strongest relationship with Castilleja is that I ride my bike by it on my way to my
office near Town and Country. In all my years I have never witnessed anything other than
calm and courteous parents, staff and students getting dropped off. I feel very safe as I
ride by on my bike.
As with other interested community members and as a curious architect, I have looked at
the proposal. I like its overall design and its attention to its surrounding neighborhood.
I was pleased to see that the historic Gunn building will remain and think the new
construction is complementary. The new buildings are quiet and their materials nicely
complement the historic building. Being lower height, having recesses and balconies,
and incorporating variations in materials, the scale and massing feels right on the new
construction. I agree with the FEIR which states --the project improves the neighborhood
aesthetics.
2.d
Packet Pg. 50
I also want to comment on the landscaping. I think the gates and fencing proposed are
handsome and better detailed than you see on most commercial projects, I am also
impressed with the plant and tree selection. The landscaping looks dense and as
attractive as found on most of the residential projects in the neighborhood.
In summary I want to commend the school for proposing this alternative . It saves
homes, preserves trees, reduces the scale of the garage, and eliminates traffic impacts
associated with the original project. This is evidence of Castilleja's responsiveness to
input from the DEIR and from neighbors.
Thank you, Catharine Garber
--
Catharine Fergus Garber, Partner
Fergus Garber Architects
www.fg-arch.com
81 Encina Avenue
Palo Alto CA 94301
o 650.459.3700
m 650.245.9680
2.d
Packet Pg. 51
From:Lorraine Brown
To:Architectural Review Board
Subject:Comments about Castilleja project
Date:Thursday, August 20, 2020 3:32:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Thank you ARB members for this opportunity. I grew up in Palo Alto and raised my
family here since the 1990s. I also work at Castilleja. I know traffic has been a
concern for our neighbors so I want to comment on how Traffic Demand
Management, or TDM, has become embedded in the culture at Castilleja. As a
longtime Palo Altan, I appreciate concerns about traffic in our city, so I’d like to share
my perspective on the school’s commitment to managing traffic and parking, and
being the best neighbor we can be.
When Castilleja embarked on the master planning and CUP process years ago, we
kept an eye toward reducing impacts in everything from noise to traffic. Alternative #4
shown in the Final EIR specifically features a smaller garage and distributed drop off
for this reason.
In the seven years since we developed our robust TDM plan, our traffic levels have
been consistently 25-30% below where we started, accomplished at a time when
traffic was relentlessly increasing in the Bay Area.
Over this period, TDM has become part of our culture. It is not just what we do, but
who we are. Through parent, student, and employee education, frequent reminders,
and strict rules for parking and traffic, everyone in our community has come to
appreciate their role in making a difference—and they DO.
To support their efforts, we have added bus routes, shuttle service between Caltrain
and the school, and employee reimbursements for non-car commuting. All
employees are required to come to campus at least three days a week by some
means other than single occupancy vehicles or participate in traffic duty to help
manage flow during drop off and pick up. The results have been astonishing with
fewer than 50% of our students arriving on campus by SOV.
With this successful track record and a depth of experience, we are poised to
continue to reduce our car trips per student as we grow enrollment, resulting in no net
new trips while making this unique education available to more girls from a diversity of
backgrounds. We will be held accountable through carefully documented mitigations
and conditions of approval with penalties to ensure our compliance.
To ensure compliance within our own community, we have at least 7 monitors who
help with daily and special event traffic and parking. They also patrol neighborhood
2.d
Packet Pg. 52
streets to ensure that Castilleja community members are only parking in designated
areas. We have shifted event-related parking to our athletic field, and our attendants
promote compliance and efficiency. We intend to further reduce our parking impacts
with the underground garage, designed to relocate parking on the perimeter of
campus below ground. I also want to note that a proposal from the community to
enter and exit campus on Embarcadero was studied at the City’s request before we
filed our CUP application, and after study by traffic consultants, the City determined
that it would cause an adverse impact.
I am telling you this to demonstrate our commitment and capacity to limit traffic and
parking in our neighborhood. I hope that you can now understand why we are so
proud of our traffic reduction achievements and why we believe that we are offering a
model for schools and employers to curtail traffic and parking in Palo Alto.
Thank you,
Lorraine Brown
--
Lorraine Brown
Director of Communications & Community Relations
Castilleja School
1310 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
P (650) 470-7735
E lbrown@castilleja.org
www.castilleja.org
Follow us on Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn
Women Learning. Women Leading.
2.d
Packet Pg. 53
From:Bruce McLeod
To:Architectural Review Board
Subject:FAR for 1310 Bryant
Date:Thursday, August 20, 2020 11:14:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Allowable Floor Area for that lot is 81,3815 s.f.
See parcel map.
Bruce McLeod650-465-2908
“Everything I know about morality and the obligations of men, I owe it to football.”
Albert Camus
2.d
Packet Pg. 54
From:Barbara Ann Hazlett
To:Architectural Review Board
Subject:ARB Hearing - Castilleja Neighbor Input
Date:Thursday, August 20, 2020 10:33:06 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
August 20, 2020
Dear ARB Commissioners:
I spoke at this morning's ARB hearing regarding Castilleja School and I
also wanted to submit my comments in writing. Thank you.
My Comments:
My name is Barbara Hazlett. I have lived very near Castilleja School,
just across Embarcadero for 40 years. I feel lucky to live near this
important institution. We all need to be reminded that, much like
Stanford, Castilleja is a nationally ranked school. How lucky are we to
have these kinds of educational institutions in our back yard.
Specific to this hearing, I wanted to speak today about the building
design and how pleased I am with the proposed plans. The school’s
architects have carefully studied the surrounding homes to select
materials that mirror them. The new rooflines are at the same height or
lower than the current structures, reducing the overall size and allowing
for more sunlight. I’ve looked at the renderings Castilleja has shared on
their website, and the landscaping, including all of the trees, blends the
buildings beautifully into the surrounding neighborhood. Without
increasing any Floor Area Ratio, Castilleja’s modernization greatly
improves on the current aging structures we see on campus now. All of
us, as immediate neighbors, will benefit greatly from this design.
In conclusion, the school is an excellent neighbor. The school pre-dates
all of the neighbors, having been at this location since 1910. Castilleja
should have the opportunity to modernize as have Ohlone, Paly,
Addison and Stanford. I look forward to seeing this plan come to fruition
because I know it will quickly become part of the architectural fabric of
2.d
Packet Pg. 55
our residential streets. Castilleja has always been a gem in Palo Alto,
and I hope they can finally modernize their aging campus. Please
support the school's plans and ensure that inspired architecture and
exceptional education continue as foundational and timeless values in
Palo Alto. Thank you.
Barbara Hazlett
bthazlett@aol.com
2.d
Packet Pg. 56
From:Bruce McLeod
To:Architectural Review Board
Subject:Castilleja School
Date:Thursday, August 20, 2020 8:45:29 AM
Attachments:ARB letter response 081820.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Members of the ARB;
1) Building Aesthetics:
The ARB’s charge includes “Promoting visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and
which, at the same time, are considerate of each other.”
I have worked with WRNS Studio and the aesthetics of the proposed buildings for Castilleja do not rise to the quality
and creativity of their many acclaimed projects. The Kellogg facade is devoid of any variation along the nearly 400’
roof line and includes a minimal sprinkling of alcoves or recesses. When asked about this at a public meeting, the
school’s representative stated that the neighbors would not notice once the landscaping was in place. Good design
does not need to be concealed by landscaping.
As for neighborhood considerations, I admire many of the modern homes that have been built around the City.
When designers and homeowners honor the scale and spacing of the surrounding residences they have been
welcome additions to the diverse fabric of our neighborhoods. This project does not do that. The continuous mass
along Kellogg ignores and overpowers the smaller scale and diverse details of the homes across the street and
permanently casts an industrial pall on that block. The Bryant frontage, is only marginally better and is only
considerate of the existing Craftsman administration building by trying to ignore it.
Perhaps the ARB can persuade the school to consider a design framework that is more in keeping with the Palo Alto
Single-Family Individual Review Guidelines against which it should be measured.
2) Floor Area:
The Palo Alto Municipal code allows replacement of buildings for grandfathered CUP uses with no increase in floor
area. Castilleja circumvent the spirit, and possibly the letter, of the Code by adding over 30,000 s.f. of new school
floor area below grade plus another 30,000 s.f. of garage space.
I ask that the ARB make a clear statement to protect Palo Alto neighborhoods from overreaching development,
however well-intentioned, by rejecting plans that in any way increase the floor area on this already over-developed
site.
3) Process:
In April of this year, 8 months after the DEIR public comment period, Castilleja submitted revised plans. This should
have triggered additional studies, especially traffic flow, and a public comment period. It did not. Even if the City
staff believes this hasty process is legally defensible, avoiding additional public comment for the revised plans is a
betrayal of the public trust and an abdication of their responsibility to the community at large.
The ARB should correct this lack of oversight and refuse to consider any development plans for this site until revised
plans are subjected to public comments and review.
Respectfully
Bruce McLeod
2.d
Packet Pg. 57
1404 Bryant Street
Palo Alto
Bruce McLeod
650-465-2908
“Everything I know about morality and the obligations of men, I owe it to football.”
Albert Camus
2.d
Packet Pg. 58
Date August 20th 2020
Dear ARB Commissioners,
My name is Nelson Ng. I have lived for 24 years at 1260 Emerson Street that is across
from Castilleja’s proposed garage exit. Being one of the closest resident to the garage
exit, I strongly oppose Alternative 2 to 5 as stated in the Final EIR because none of the
alternatives addresses the true impact of Castilleja Expansion by reducing traffic to the
neighborhood.
Palo Alto Municipal Code sec 18.76.020 Architectural Review under (d) Findings
subsection (2)(E)
Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes
residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas.
subsection(4)
The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of
pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that
support the building's necessary operations (e.g. convenient
vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate
arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if
applicable, etc.).
Building an underground garage or surface parking lot in a Single Family Neighborhood
will allow Castilleja to bring additional traffic to the neighborhood that will result in
degrading the living condition of the adjacent residents. The alternative that would
truly reduce the impact to the neighborhood is to provide satellite parking and shuttle
students and staffs to campus without building underground garage or additional
surface parking lot.
This Final EIR Traffic Impact Study is incomplete and with inaccurate findings. By citing
out of scope for CEQA, many studies that are needed to provide a more complete
picture of the proposed project traffic impact to the neighborhood were not conducted.
Assumptions were made base on inaccurate information or without
justification. Therefore, I am requesting the commission to reject the current version of
the Final EIR until necessary studies and accurate information are presented
Followings are some of the examples
¥ Castilleja has over 100 events per academic year. Therefore, it is important
to study the event impact during weekday, evening and weekend. However in
Responses to Comments C39-1-10 rejected to study events with
Special event traffic is not reflected in the traffic
impacts analysis because this traffic typically occurs
2.d
Packet Pg. 59
outside of peak hours and does not contribute to average
daily traffic volumes and conditions.
¥ In the DEIR, both Alternative 2 and 3 were found to result in Significant and
Unavoidable Impact even with Mitigation due to over 80% increase of net new
trips for northbound Emerson to eastbound Embarcadero from 842 to 1521 daily
trip. Alternative 4 was proposed in April 2020 and added to the Final EIR
without any study to validate the assumption. In page 44 of TIS,
This alternative assumes 60 percent off all project related
private auto travel would use the Bryant Street loop, 30
percent would use the Kellogg Avenue loop and the remaining
10 percent would use the underground garage with an entrance
on Bryant Street and exit onto Emerson Street.
By arbitrarily assigning only 10% of the traffic will go into the underground
garage and further split up the garage exiting traffic by allowing to either turn
left or right on to Emerson, it reduced the net new traffic for northbound
Emerson to eastbound Embarcadero by 92% from 679 to 51. However, this
assumption was not justified with any reason or study to ensure that it will be
feasible.
¥ Kellogg Ave that is at the south border of Castilleja was never studied in the
EIR. So we will not know what is the impact to Kellogg from Alternative 4 due to
the garage exist traffic left turn onto Emerson toward Kellogg and the additional
dropoff points on Bryant and Kellogg side of Castilleja campus proposed in
Alternative 4.
¥ In Figure 16 page 53 of TIS, it shows 292 and 220 net new daily trips are
added to Bryant Street between Embarcadero and Kellogg and between Kellogg
and Churchill due to Alternative 4 by adding the addition dropoff on Bryant
Street. Bryant Street is a Bike Blvd that is a major artery for students and
commuter cyclists. Adding any additional traffic will increase the risk to the
cyclists. I can’t find in the FEIR concrete steps to mitigate the risk.
¥ For over 24 years, I have lived within 300 ft from the south side of
Embarcadero and Emerson. On a daily basis, I have to make a right turn from
northbound Emerson onto eastbound Embarcadero. I frequent see Paly
students riding their bikes on the south side of Embarcadero Road sidewalk that
boarders Castilleja traveling eastbound crossing Emerson to PALY. Although this
is against the traffic direction of the road, this will allow them not wait for the
long signal light at Town and Country to cross Embarcadero as for north side of
Embarcadero bicyclists. This is very dangerous intersection because drivers
making right turn from Emerson onto eastbound Embarcadero will be focusing
to look to their left for the high speed eastbound Embarcadero traffic traveling
30 to 40+ MPH. I have seen near misses when bicyclists crossing Emerson on
2.d
Packet Pg. 60
south side of Embarcadero toward PALY. I requested that to be study as part of
Comment Letter C39.2 for DEIR. However, in the Response C39.2-1 in Final EIR,
it only stated the following assumption with boilerplate answer by citing CEQA
without addressing the risk of the real situation that many Paly students on a
daily basis are using the sidewalk on south side of Embarcadero Road traveling
westbound to PALY. (Please see picture below for better visual understanding of the Emerson
and Embarcadero intersection)
Since CEQA states that the analysis in an EIR should not
be speculative, it is reasonable to assume that
individuals will adhere to traffic laws, including speed
limits and bicyclists using the right-hand side of the
road. Any bicyclists using the Emerson Street crosswalk on
the south side of Embarcadero Road should also be
traveling eastbound and would be visible to a driver
watching the eastbound vehicle traffic.
¥ As part of Comment C39.1-9 for the DEIR, I requested that car traffic be
measured one to two blocks away since many times I have seen parents drop off
students or drive to events on campus. Encroachments further out into outlying
neighborhoods were not studied but should have been. 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 cards
entering their parking lot. However, in the Response C39.1-9 in Final EIR, it only
stated the following boilerplate answer by citing CEQA without studying the true
impact
The comment is correct that driveway vehicle counts do not
capture students that may be dropped-off on neighborhood
streets. The student travel survey was used to account for
those students. The results of the TDM plan monitoring
reports were also used to further inform the assessment of
trip generation and distribution associated with existing
and proposed conditions This represents a reasonable
attempt at determining an accurate baseline and projected
conditions, consistent with industry standard methods, and
consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15003(i) which
states that “CEQA does not require technical perfection in
an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good-
faith effort at full disclosure.”
¥ The following is from page 44 of Castilleja EIR Appendix E Traffic Impact
Study for Castilleja School Expansion_July 2020.pdf
Bryant Street Collision Analysis
The collision history for the segment of Bryant Street
between Embarcadero Road and Kellogg Avenue was reviewed to
determine the number of collisions during a recent three-
year period and to potentially identify trends based on the
2.d
Packet Pg. 61
collision history. This information is based on records
available from the California Highway Patrol as published in
their Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
reports from March 30, 2015 to March 31, 2018. A single non-
injury collision occurred along the study segment during
this period. This collision occurred between a vehicle and a
fixed object and did not involve a bicycle.
Finding – Given the relatively small number of documented
crashes and the lack of any crashes involving bicycles along
the segment of Bryant Street between Embarcadero Road and
Kellogg Avenue, a safety concern involving bicycles along
the study segment has not been demonstrated.
However, there was an accident involving a bicyclist at the intersection of Bryant
and Embarcadero on 2/13/2018 at around 5pm that shutdown both direction of
Embarcadero for over an hour. Following is extracted from the Palo Alto Weekly
article Two injured in Embarcadero Road collision
Two men were injured in a collision on a major thoroughfare
shut down for more than an hour in Palo Alto at the height
of the evening commute on Tuesday, police said.
Officers responded to the collision at Embarcadero Road and
Bryant Street around 5 p.m. An adult driving a sedan was
heading west on Embarcadero and struck the pedestrian with a
scooter and bicyclist at the intersection, police said.
The above are just some of the examples of the incompleteness and inaccuracy of this
Final EIR. It doesn’t fully study the impact and the safety issues of this project to the
neighborhood.
In addition, Due the COVID-19 pandemic, all the schools in the US and the world are
trying to find ways to cope with the current situation and plan for the post COVID-19
world. The Castilleja Expansion proposal and the FEIR were completed without any
consideration of the COVID-19 world and extra vigilance that must be taken for social
distancing, student density and acceptable activities. How can we be sure any of the
proposal of this expansion will not have additional significant impact to the community
of Palo Alto?
Therefore, I ask the commission to reject this Final EIR and request additional studies to
fully address the impacts and safety concerns as well analyzing the potential impacts of
COVID-19 in the future.
Nelson
2.d
Packet Pg. 62
2.d
Packet Pg. 63
From:Marie Macy
To:Planning Commission
Subject:Fwd: regarding continued discussion of Castilleja expansion
Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2020 12:54:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Subject: regarding continued discussion of Castilleja expansion
To the Architectural Review Boardand
Members of the Planning Commission
I am writing to express in the strongest possible terms our objection to Castilleja’spersistent push to expand their private facility at the expense of our neighborhood.
In writing, I think about you, members of this board and this commission:acceptance of this move would set a precedent. How would each of you feel if this
project were realized 1/2 block from each of your homes? Looks different,doesn’t it, but you are setting the stage for similar moves.
And may I remind you that this is not a neighbor family requesting a one-time
variance to build a 100 square foot tree house in their front yard or add a 4th storyto their house. Such requests would not even be considered. No, this is a tax
exempt commercial operation. Tax exempt: this means that we, the affectedneighbors, are underwriting the city’s infrastructure and services. This is
completely outrageous. What are we talking about? WHY are we STILL talkingabout it? How did this get this far?
The garage is going to exit onto my one block of Melville? All those cars? We
already had a car totaled by a Castilleja driver and a cat run over (I mean, they’rekids). And exactly what does the City of Palo Alto get out of this? (I mean, the
vast majority - 75% - of the students are from other towns.) What is themotivation for your counsel and commission even considering this? What is
missing here?
Another outraged neighbor family,Skip and Marie Macy, Han and Mary Joy Macy and two very small children
2.d
Packet Pg. 64
From:Vic Befera
To:Planning Commission
Subject:Castilleja FEIR - meeting topic August 25
Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2020 12:22:04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
To the Planning and Transportation Committee:
At 94 I am perhaps the oldest resident and one of the longest neighbors of Castilleja School,
and can offer a historical perspective spanning over 50 years of dealing with the school.
In 1968, when it was still a small boarding school with limited enrollment of students, many
living in resident dormitories, the school blended easily with the character and charm of old
Palo Alto. However, when the school converted to a day school it began an explosion of new
enrollment that continues to the present. Traffic and parking problems erupted, with illegal
parking, blocked driveways, noisy delivery trucks, and weekend social and athletic events
lasting long into the night. Parents bringing and picking up students both mornings and
afternoons double-park, clogging streets. Our appeals for relief to the school went unheeded.
Elsewhere you can read details of the city-imposed student enrollment cap and traffic
demands management requirements – which we neighbors negotiated over 18 months in
1998-1999 - and the school’s flagrant, years-long code violations.
Now Castilleja, bursting at the seams, is embarked upon a proposed multi-million dollar
expansion and campus redevelopment while requesting yet another increase in enrollment,
despite the City’s unequivocal statement in 2000 that “any subsequent
request for additional students will not be favorably looked upon by the City. … the City is not
willing to continue to approach increasing school enrollment for Castilleja School in an
incremental manner.” What neighbors accepted as a final directive has been blithely ignored
by the school and gone unenforced by the city.
Demolition and construction in several phases will become a multi-year ordeal of dust, noise,
and traffic dislocation. A proposed underground parking garage entered on Bryant Street will
endanger bikers traveling via the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard. The Environmental Impact
report is unblinking: it will cause “significant and unavoidable increase in traffic.” The growth
will impact cross-town traffic on Alma Street, Embarcadero Road, Bryant Street, and other
school access thoroughfares. Congestion delays and accidents are inevitable, especially when
heavier traffic resumes after the coronavirus pandemic abates. This neighborhood dispute
becomes a serious city-wide problem.
The pricey, elite private school with tuition rivaling Stanford’s is in fact a “non-profit”
commercial business operating in one of the city’s earliest residential zones. It pays income or
property taxes, yet enjoys full city services of police and fire protection. Lacking adequate
2.d
Packet Pg. 65
campus parking, it forces many students, teachers, staff, and visitors to park on city streets.
Architecturally the outsized expansion design will bring a sterile, industrial look and big box
wholesaler exterior with a jarring contrast to the patina of age in surrounding homes.
I applaud the school’s impeccable scholastic ranking. Quality education of our children is of
supreme importance in a democratic society. Unfortunately Castilleja’s management has lost
our trust with its broken promises and lack of transparency in flouting city codes. A school that
professes to teach high standards of integrity and morality and good citizenship to young
minds has flunked Ethics 101.
Long after we have all passed from the scene, the deeds of your commissions for planning,
architecture, and traffic will endure permanently. Ask yourselves what course is best for the
face and future of Palo Alto.
Vic Befera
1404 Bryant Street
Palo Alto CA 94301
2.d
Packet Pg. 66
From:Kimberley Wong
To:Architectural Review Board
Cc:Castilleja Expansion; Council, City; French, Amy; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Comments of FEIR review for ARB Aug 20,2020 meeting
Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2020 9:36:26 PM
Attachments:Screen Shot 2020-08-19 at 10.54.43 AM.PNGIMG_4911.PNG
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear ARB board members,
My name is Kimberley Wong and my husband Nelson and I have lived directly across
from the Lockey house for 24 years. With the construction of the gym in 2007 our
roads and livability were affected by noise, dust, and the constant dewatering for
months. The project Castilleja is proposing is monstrous in comparison. Even the
newest alternative fails aesthetically and negatively on living conditions due to its sizeand scale.
The Palo Alto Municipal Code sec 18.76.020 ARB requirement is that a project "enhances the
living conditions on the site... and in adjacent residential areas". These refer to the 34 homes
surrounding the school. It also says that projects should "promote visual
environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the sametime, are considerate of each other."
The newly proposed Castileja buildings are also not keeping with the scale and
character of buildings on the campus or surrounding neighborhood of homes inProfessorville and Old Palo Alto. And the proposed project does NOT take into
consideration that the surrounding neighborhood needs to bear the brunt of traffic
brought on by this massive project. The beeps, whistles and car traffic will carry into
the neighborhood. And cars traveling in and out of the proposed underground garageand multiple drop off sites will compete with bicyclists on the Bike Safety Boulevard
and around the campus.
In terms of a4, of “promoting visual environments of high aesthetic quality” Theproposed 3/4 of a block long building fails to blend in with the classic homes such as
tudors, craftsman, colonial revival on Kellogg. It is also incompatible with the
Craftsman style Administration building and Chapel on campus as well as the Lockey
house, a charming home which retains much of it’s old character. Neither does thisbuilding blend in with the other classic homes on the other 3 sides of the campus.
Gustave Laumeister, son-in-law of Henry Seale, who sold Miss Lockey the property to
build her campus, was well known for developing the Administration building as well
as many homes in Professorville, just north of the campus. Photos of the thesurrounding homes are attached.
As for size and massing: Please look at these two aerial photos. To the left is Target
which is 600 ft long and Castilleja which currently is 200 feet long. Though the scaleis different, the relative mass in relation to the street length is the same. At least the
2.d
Packet Pg. 67
view towards Target on Ortega Drive is shielded by three separate buildings whereas
the residents on Kellogg are looking at one huge mass. Making this building any
longer will be even more overbearing than it is now.
And the style as we see below is not compatible with any of the classic homes across
the street.
2.d
Packet Pg. 68
Here are the samplings of Kellogg Homes. The homes on the other 3 surrounding
streets are attached below to give you a full view of the styles of homes which
Castilleja should strive to be compatible with to maintain consistency within their city
block.
2.d
Packet Pg. 69
The size and scale of this new proposed building is out of line with no pass-throughs
as the present building . Take a look at the original plans as Laumeister arranged the
buildings to reduce the scale and size of any one building to aesthetically blend into
the single family neighborhood on the 6 acre land that the campus was zoned for.
2.d
Packet Pg. 70
It is understandable with the growing student population that more buildings had to be
built. But extending the present facade beyond what exists now into a longer
monolithic building in the most recent proposal is overwhelming and unacceptable
and inconsistent to this residential neighborhood. This goes against Policy L-6 ofmixed-use areas.
Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between
residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of differentdensities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place
zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever
possible.
With regard to bike safety, I and many of my friends have seen countless incidents of
near misses of bicyclist being hit at the corner of Embarcadero and Bryant. I am
shocked to see that in the FEIR this was reported:
Bryant Street Collision Analysis
The collision history for the segment of Bryant Street between Embarcadero Road
and Kellogg Avenue was reviewed to determine the number of collisions during a
recent three-year period and to potentially identify trends based on the collisionhistory. This information is based on records available from the California Highway
Patrol as published in their Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
reports from March 30, 2015 to March 31, 2018. A single non-injury collision occurred
along the study segment during this period. This collision occurred between a vehicle
and a fixed object and did not involve a bicycle.
Finding – Given the relatively small number of documented crashes and the lack of
any crashes involving bicycles along the segment of Bryant Street betweenEmbarcadero Road and Kellogg Avenue, a safety concern involving bicycles along
the study segment has not been demonstrated.
2.d
Packet Pg. 71
On February 13, 2018 this accident happened and was written about in the news:
https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/02/13/injury-collision-blocks-embarcadero-road
As stated here, two men were injured and sent to the hospital. One was a teacher
who was hospitalized for several days. His injuries were severe enough that he was
not able to return to teach for quite a while. It is surprising that this major incident was
completely overlooked. This begs the question how many other incidents from 2015-
2018 were not included in the FEIR.
As I remember, the traffic was redirected through Emerson past my house and
around to Kellogg to avoid the area. Just one incident can impact the neighborhood's
living condition due to the fact that Castilleja is embedded deeply into a residential
neighborhood and its narrow streets cannot handle this type of emergency traffic.Think of what could happen if there was a emergency on campus. Is this campus with
a proposed garage equipped to bring in emergency vehicles onto the property in a
timely manner especially if the roads are backed up? This is only one example of how
our living conditions can be severely impacted by safety issues around the school.This will be exacerbated by the construction and traffic flow into and out of an
underground garage on a major Bike Safety Boulevard.
And with administrators, teachers, parents and children coming to the campus via 3
drop offs and a proposed underground garage entering onto the Bicycle Safety
Boulevard the extra traffic will also introduce congestion, pollution as well as safety
hazards on all sides of the campus. These issues are severe impacts to ensuring
livable conditions which the ARB strives in accordance with the Comprehensive plan.
Underground garages are not allowed to be in R1 zoned neighborhoods and for good
reason. They cause disruption in traffic, are not aesthetically pleasing even if you lace
it up with greenery, and are not consistent with a Single Family zoned neighborhood. I
suggest that a no garage option be returned to the table and studied to provide amore sensible, less impactful alternative more consistent with a Single Family
Neighborhood.
And the major structures to be rebuilt on Bryant and Kellogg should be redesignedwith more pass through views of greenery and open space and be built in a style
more compatible to the Administration and Chapel buildings in the manner which
Gustave Laumeister first envisioned when he created the campus for Ms Mary
Lockey more than 100 years ago.
Thank you,
Kimberley Wong at 1260 Emerson Street, Palo Alto
2.d
Packet Pg. 72
2.d
Packet Pg. 73
2.d
Packet Pg. 74
2.d
Packet Pg. 75
2.d
Packet Pg. 76
2.d
Packet Pg. 77
2.d
Packet Pg. 78
From:Andie Reed
To:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion
Subject:EIR conflicting Mitigation Measures
Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2020 9:23:12 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Comment Letter C45.4 regarding Mitigation Measures:
There are 3 impacts noted in the Draft EIR as “significant and unavoidable”. TheFinal EIR includes an option that was not included in the Draft EIR but that has nowrisen to the top as the school’s alternative of choice because, so the FEIR states, theschool will disburse the traffic and thus mitigate these traffic problems.
It is important to note that the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage still containsan underground garage exit facing Emerson and Melville, leading intoEmbarcadero and Alma respectively, which the FEIR states will cause delays andincreased traffic (Table MR5-2, school daily trips of 1,477). Added to theunderground garage are the loop driveways at Bryant and Kellogg, and notmentioned but still important are driveway entrances on both Kellogg and EmersonStreets into a parking lot on the corner and also a delivery driveway on Emerson.
Table 1-2 in the Revised DEIR states that Impact 4-2 Create Land Use Incompatibilityor physically divide an established community will be mitigated using Measure 4ato reduce this traffic impact. Mitigation Measure 4a is totally concerned withEvents traffic. The school has over the years continually abused its Conditions ofApproval by hosting 10x as many events as the current CUP allows, and now isclaiming to reduce events from 100 to 90. This mitigation measure is not related inany way to the traffic caused by this Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garageoption.
In fact, in the Response to my Comment Letter C45.4-1, the Final EIR states “TheDEIR concluded that the project would result in a significant and unavoidable landuse compatibility impact for the sole reason the project would generate asubstantial increase in daily traffic volumes on the sedent of Emerson Streetbetween Melville Avenue and Embarcadero Road… Not because of events, butbecause of daily traffic. This contradicts the Mitigation Measures described above.
This Final EIR is inadequate because of the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage
alternative being submitted very late in the process without allowing for a Public
Comment period, as required by CEQA, and because Mitigation Measures, an
example of which is described above, do not relate to the very grave and
overwhelming daily traffic issues introduced by this overreaching expansion plan.
Thank you for your consideration of my input.
Andie Reed
Melville Ave
--
Andie Reed CPA160 Melville Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
530-401-3809
2.d
Packet Pg. 79
From:Andie Reed
To:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Castilleja Expansion; Council, City
Subject:Castilleja FEIR
Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2020 9:12:35 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Comment Letter 45.2-10:
Events
It is important to re- state that using a reduction to 90 events per school year fromthe current 100 as a mitigation for traffic congestion is misleading and inaccurate. The school is not allowed 100 events per year but has been holding them anyway,despite continuous complaints from the neighbors over many years. There is notONE school, public or private, in a residential neighborhood in Palo Alto withoutlarge acreage to absorb it, that allows weeknight and weekend events. TheConditions of Approval allow 5 major events and several other”.
The Response states that there is “no quantitative limit on the number of andfrequency of special events”. That statement is factually inaccurate. It is true thatthe current Conditions do not do a good job describing the allowed numbers (theConditions allow 5 major and “several” other events”), but the intent is clear. “Several” does not, in anyone’s book, mean 100, so one has to rely on intent. TheResponse ignores the intent, and that is inadequate. I point out a set of letters tothe PNQL attorney from the Planning Director agreeing with the neighborhoodgroup that “the INTENT IS TO LIMIT THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF EVENTS” and a letterfrom the Planning Director to the School’s attorney that the intent is beingmisinterpreted. This correspondence, from Feb 2018, has been brought to theattention of City staff and the EIR report preparers ignore these facts. The currentCUP also states no back-to-back weekends and no Sundays and etc., but none ofthat has ever been abided by.
This is the context under which the report uses 100 events as a baseline, and itshould be pointed out to the public and the decision makers that the EIR and theComment Response statement makes a mockery of the Current Conditional UsePermit which the school has disregarded with impunity.
Please limit the school’s events to 10 to 20 or define very specifically its Hours ofOperation.
Thank you,
Andie Reed
--
Andie Reed CPA
Melville Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301530-401-3809
2.d
Packet Pg. 80
From:Jeff Levinsky
To:Architectural Review Board
Subject:Castilleja’s Proposed Underground Garage Should Count as Floor Area
Date:Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:56:43 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Architectural Review Board Members:
The plans for Castilleja do not count the underground garage as gross floor area. However, our
municipal code states clearly that in the R-1 zone in which Castilleja sits, parking structures and
garages do count as gross floor area. Here are the relevant code sections, no doubt familiar to
anyone who has looked at our city’s definitions of “gross floor area,” with highlights added:
18.04.030(a)(65)(C): Low Density Residential Inclusions and Conditions
In the RE and R-1 single- family residence districts and in the R-2 and RMD two-family
residence districts, gross floor area” means the total covered area of all floors of a main
structure and accessory structures greater than one hundred and twenty square feet in
area, including covered parking and stairways, measured to the outside of stud walls,
including the following:
…
(iii) Carports and garages shall be included in gross floor area;
Last year, I asked the EIR to address whether Castilleja’s garage needed to be counted then as
gross floor area, per the above laws. The EIR is required by law to respond it but included no
discussion of the above code sections. The staff report does not either.
The EIR does contain two arguments that the underground garage is not floor area. Here’s the
first:
The garage space would not count towards the site’s FAR because it would be below
ground and thus is assessed in accordance with Municipal Code Section 18.12.040(b),
which states that basements are not included in the gross floor area of buildings in the
R-1 district provided that they comply with the patio and lightwell requirements
described in Section 18.12.090.
(from page 2-82, Castilleja School Project Final EIR, July 2020)
The above is incorrect because it fails to mention that 18.12.090 also says:
(a) Permitted Basement Area
Basements may not extend beyond the building footprint and basements are not
allowed below any portion of a structure that extends into required setbacks, except to
the extent that the main residence is permitted to extend into the rear yard setback by
2.d
Packet Pg. 81
other provisions of this code.
Castilleja’s proposed underground garage is not under a building footprint. It’s under a playing
field. Under the EIR’s notion that it should be treated as a basement, it is then not allowable at
all. I think the better interpretation is that it is not a basement but is a garage and thus must be
counted as gross floor area.
Ironically, the other municipal code section the EIR cites above, namely 18.12.040(b), explicitly
states that garages do count in gross floor area. Here’s the entry from the table in that section
explaining what is and is not gross floor area:
In other words, if you simply read the very code sections that the EIR cites to claim that the
garage is not gross floor area, both actually indicate that it is.
The EIR makes a second argument:
This interpretation of Municipal Code Section 18.12.060(e) is consistent with how the
City has applied this section to other non-residential uses in the R-1 zone, such as the
Kol Emeth synagogue on Manuela Road.
(from page 2-82, Castilleja School Project Final EIR, July 2020)
Kol Emeth does have an underground garage and is zoned R-1, but this is not a relevant
argument. Here is 18.12.060(e):
Underground Parking
Underground parking is prohibited for single-family uses, except pursuant to a variance
granted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.76, in which case the area of
the underground garage shall be counted in determining the floor area ratio for the site.
The above governs a prohibition for single-family use underground parking and how it may be
exempted. Neither Kol Emeth nor Castilleja are being treated by the city as single family uses.
So how the city has applied (or rather not applied) 18.12.060(e) to Kol Emeth does not enable
Castilleja’s garage to ignore the other laws that require its garage be counted as gross floor
area. In fact, I did not spot in Kol Emeth’s staff reports any mention of those three other laws,
2.d
Packet Pg. 82
as cited above, that mandate counting covered parking and garages in R-1 as gross floor area,
namely:
18.04.030(a)(65)(C),
18.04.030(a)(65)(C)(iii), and
18.12.040(b) Table 3
Absent evidence that the Kol Emeth project ever considered these rules and offered a
deliberative interpretation of how its garage was not subject to them, it clearly cannot serve as
a precedent. Rather, we all know that zoning laws are sometimes overlooked and Kol Emeth
appears merely to represent one more such case. How its circumstances, which are not even
the same as Castilleja’s, would have been evaluated under those laws is unknown.
You are being asked to make findings including (from packet page 18):
1)The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements),
and any relevant design guides.
Your packet page 19 comments that:
AR Finding #1 is to compare the project with Zoning Code development standards
and Comprehensive Plan policies.
As explained above, and as I think you all know well as local architects, our Zoning Code states
that Castilleja’s underground garage is in fact gross floor area. The plans, staff report, and EIR
are incorrect in not showing it as such. Until that’s remedied, finding #1 cannot be made.
Respectfully,
Jeff Levinsky
2.d
Packet Pg. 83
From:jcpoppy55@comcast.net
To:Architectural Review Board
Subject:Castilleja Expansion is Wrong for Palo Alto
Date:Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:39:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello ARB,
Thank you for your time to analyze this project. The volume of paperwork is
staggering, and there are many items that are missing, being avoided, or
misrepresented.
At a high level, the project flies in the face of the City's Comp Plan which prizes
vibrant residential communities, reduced traffic, and enhanced bicycle and pedestrianinfrastructure.
Adding an underground garage on the Bryant Bike Boulevard is absurd! The school
has over 100 events a year, not just dropoffs and pickups for school. This willendanger cyclists and limit the viability of a bike route used by middle and high school
students and commuters. Why make such an exception for an elitist institution that
pays no taxes?
Furthermore, there are many more proposed exemptions, variances, and code
violations that still exist in the project which includes, but is not limited to:
1. PA Muni Code 18.12.60 “Underground parking is prohibited for single-family uses,except pursuant to a variance granted in accordance with the provisions of Ch 18.76
(CUP), in which case the area of the underground garage shall be
counted in determining the FAR”. The school is not including garage in FAR, violating
this code section, and is not asking for a variance for the garage.
2. The school is proposing 30,000 more above-ground square feet than is allowed by
current Code (18.12.040, Table 2) Per the school’s own Request for Variance, Mar
22, 2018, they are currently at .42 and Code states .3026 FAR for this site. Schoolproposing to demolish old buildings and build new but keep
grandfathered .42.
3. The school should be required to go through a variance process like any otherapplicant (no variance submitted for garage facility).
The plans for the proposed expansion went through many changes after the DEIR
and the FEIR has made some hasty patchwork to try to resolve many importantissues that should be studied and verified, especially with regard to traffic and safety.
The 'No Garage Option' was not studied in the DEIR and the planning department
has made a poor retroactive attempt to address this by making it sound like homesand trees would have to be sacrificed. That is not the case. There is no mandate that
says the school must expand beyond current enrollment levels. A small increase may
2.d
Packet Pg. 84
work but the existing site can work with upgrades. There is no need for the garage
and the multitude of other variances.
Regards,
Jim Poppy
Melville Avenue, Palo Alto
2.d
Packet Pg. 85
From:Vic Befera
To:Architectural Review Board
Subject:Castilleja FEIR - meeting topic 8.20.20
Date:Monday, August 17, 2020 10:53:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
To the Architectural Review Board:
At 94 I am perhaps the oldest resident and one of the longest neighbors of Castilleja School,
and can offer a historical perspective spanning over 50 years of dealing with the school.
In 1968, when it was still a small boarding school with limited enrollment of students, many
living in resident dormitories, the school blended easily with the character and charm of old
Palo Alto. However, when the school converted to a day school it began an explosion of new
enrollment that continues to the present. Traffic and parking problems erupted, with illegal
parking, blocked driveways, noisy delivery trucks, and weekend social and athletic events
lasting long into the night. Parents bringing and picking up students both mornings and
afternoons double-park, clogging streets. Our appeals for relief to the school went unheeded.
Elsewhere you can read details of the city-imposed student enrollment cap and traffic
demands management requirements – which we neighbors negotiated over 18 months in
1998-1999 - and the school’s flagrant, years-long code violations.
Now Castilleja, bursting at the seams, is embarked upon a proposed multi-million dollar
expansion and campus redevelopment while requesting yet another increase in enrollment,
despite the City’s unequivocal statement in 2000 that “any subsequent
request for additional students will not be favorably looked upon by the City. … the City is not
willing to continue to approach increasing school enrollment for Castilleja School in an
incremental manner.” What neighbors accepted as a final directive has been blithely ignored
by the school and gone unenforced by the city.
Demolition and construction in several phases will become a multi-year ordeal of dust, noise,
and traffic dislocation. A proposed underground parking garage entered on Bryant Street will
endanger bikers traveling via the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard. The Environmental Impact
report is unblinking: it will cause “significant and unavoidable increase in traffic.” The growth
will impact cross-town traffic on Alma Street, Embarcadero Road, Bryant Street, and other
school access thoroughfares. Congestion delays and accidents are inevitable, especially when
heavier traffic resumes after the coronavirus pandemic abates. This neighborhood dispute
becomes a serious city-wide problem.
The pricey, elite private school with tuition rivaling Stanford’s is in fact a “non-profit”
commercial business operating in one of the city’s earliest residential zones. It pays income or
property taxes, yet enjoys full city services of police and fire protection. Lacking adequate
2.d
Packet Pg. 86
campus parking, it forces many students, teachers, staff, and visitors to park on city streets.
Architecturally the outsized expansion design will bring a sterile, industrial look and big box
wholesaler exterior with a jarring contrast to the patina of age in surrounding homes.
I applaud the school’s impeccable scholastic ranking. Quality education of our children is of
supreme importance in a democratic society. Unfortunately Castilleja’s management has lost
our trust with its broken promises and lack of transparency in flouting city codes. A school that
professes to teach high standards of integrity and morality and good citizenship to young
minds has flunked Ethics 101.
Long after we have all passed from the scene, the deeds of your commissions for planning,
architecture, and traffic will endure permanently. Ask yourselves what course is best for the
face and future of Palo Alto.
Vic Befera
1404 Bryant Street
Palo Alto CA 94301
2.d
Packet Pg. 87
From:Hank Sousa
To:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission
Subject:Response to Comment Letter C52.2
Date:Monday, August 17, 2020 6:13:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear ARB and PTC Members,
Regarding the Final EIR, in my comment response, C52.2-4, the report preparer talks about
the additional 679 extra cars on Emerson between Melville and Embarcadero. The DEIRconcludes this is significant and unavoidable but the impact would be avoided under the
Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative. What is this based on? There was nopublic discussion of the alternative and in particular no discussion of Kellogg, Bryant, and
Emerson drop off lanes in conjunction with the proposed underground garage entrances andexits. In particular it looks like a drop off lane has been added to the area of Emerson and
Kellogg but does not appear to be mentioned at all. This makes the FEIR inadequate.Shouldn't an amended or supplemental EIR be added before it can be called Final?
Thank you,
Hank Sousa160 Melville Ave.
2.d
Packet Pg. 88
From:Rebecca Sanders
To:Architectural Review Board
Subject:Please stomp the brakes on Castilleja
Date:Monday, August 17, 2020 2:59:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Architectural Review Board Members:
I live over in Ventura and am a staunch supporter of public schools. Even though Castilleja’s
part of town is off my radar for the most part, I have to speak my peace about what appears tobe bullying tactics and out and out lying by Castilleja administration in order to stuff an
oversized expansion onto the posh school's small footprint in a heavily saturated residentialneighborhood in our city.
I have followed the Castilleja expansion plans and the answer is simple. If they want to grow,
they should buy a second campus and move or split the school. Other private schools likeMenlo and Woodside Priory have large campuses. The current campus is just too small to
accommodate what could otherwise be seen as noble plans — if these plans didn’t completelychange the livability and the character of the adjacent neighborhoods. Also there is nothing
noble about ducking the law by consistently being out of compliance by having too manyenrolled students and then not paying the fines that are due the city. I don't see why we should
cut a deal with Castilleja when they have been in violation of our laws for years.
Why does Castilleja have to ruin the neighborhood? I mean the underground parking garage,really? 1400 car trips a day? 400 at peak commute times? The traffic is traditionally a
nightmare over on Embarcadero with racing cut through traffic in and around Castilleja. Thiswill only add to the traffic and congestion.
The scale and massing of the proposal is way out of proportion to the surrounding area, like
dropping a strip mall right into a bucolic neighborhood. Plus there is no benefit to the city. They don’t pay taxes do they, and they’ll be adding to the strain on our infrastructure without
any benefit to the community. Did I hear that only 1 in 4 of the students hail from Palo Altoso we have all these folks pouring into our city who don’t really live here, right? What if they
poured into a campus that was closer to a highway like 280 or 101? Wouldn’t that better?
Please deny the applicant. Tell them to scale it way back or just do the right thing and findanother campus. They have pots of money and a wealthy clientel. If they moved to the
outskirts of the city, we could use that property for housing, which we desperately need.
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns.
Becky SandersVentura
2.d
Packet Pg. 89
From:richard mamelok
To:Architectural Review Board
Subject:Castilleja project
Date:Monday, August 17, 2020 1:17:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
RE Castilleja expansion and campus footprint
We do not support the increased in enrollment and its attendant expansion of their physical footprint, specifically the plan for a garage
(revised plan currently under review) for the following reasons:
The expansion is not consistent with maintaining the feel of a residential neighborhood.
The school’s plan for expansion is likely to increase traffic around the school despite efforts to prevent that; there is no
precedent for an increase in a physical plant leading to decreased traffic.
The inevitable changes to crossing the railroad tracks at Churchill Avenue will also affect traffic in the area in yet undetermined
ways and therefore an additional action that would affect traffic is ill advised at this time
While Castilleja provides a good education for those who can attend, Castilleja is NOT a community resource, claims to the
contrary notwithstanding.
A large majority of its students do not live in Palo Alto
The school does not pay taxes to support infrastructure.
Their programs featuring guest speakers are not open to the public.
The city staff and ultimately the city council should protect neighborhoods and act in the interest of the city’s citizens, not in
the narrow interest of a private entity that contributes little to the palo alto community at large.
Richard D. Mamelok, MD and Midori Aogaich, MD
364 Churchill Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
mobile: +1 650 924 0347
mamelok@pacbell.net
This email transmission and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it may contain
information that is confidential or legally privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this transmission to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying,
2.d
Packet Pg. 90
printing, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return email
and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
2.d
Packet Pg. 91
From:richard mamelok
To:Planning Commission
Subject:Castilleja
Date:Monday, August 17, 2020 10:44:43 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
RE Castilleja expansion and campus footprint
We do not support the increased in enrollment and its attendant expansion of their physical footprint, specifically the plan for a garage
(revised plan currently under review) for the following reasons:
The school’s plan for expansion is likely to increase traffic around the school despite efforts to prevent that; there is no
precedent for an increase in a physical plant leading to decreased traffic.
The inevitable changes to crossing the railroad tracks at Churchill Avenue will also affect traffic in the area in yet undetermined
ways and therefore an additional action that would affect traffic is ill advised at this time
While Castilleja provides a good education for those who can attend, Castilleja is NOT a community resource, claims to the
contrary notwithstanding.
A large majority of its students do not live in Palo Alto
The school does not pay taxes to support infrastructure.
Their programs featuring guest speakers are not open to the public.
The city staff and ultimately the city council should protect neighborhoods and act in the interest of the city’s citizens, not in
the narrow interest of a private entity that contributes little to the palo alto community at large.
Richard D. Mamelok, MD and Midori Aogaichi, MD
364 Churchill Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
mobile: +1 650 924 0347
mamelok@pacbell.net
2.d
Packet Pg. 92
From:Andie Reed
To:French, Amy
Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission
Subject:Castilleja Expansion FAR
Date:Monday, August 17, 2020 9:44:09 AM
Attachments:RomanowskiFARVarianceRequest2018.pdfMoncharshFARrebuttal2018.pdfFARLyzwaMar292020.tif
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Amy,
CC: ARB and PTC
1. As I am reading through your Staff Report for the upcoming meetings, I notice on Packet
Pages, 14, 17, and 25 you use the term Gross Floor Area in your discussions of the school's
Request for Variance for increased Floor Area Ratio. I understand that the Municipal Code
uses that term to define how to calculate the Floor Area Ratio, meaning generally above
grade square footage. The school is requesting an increase of FAR from .30 (allowed under
current Municipal Code) to .43 (existing conditions). I attach the school's (Ms.
Romanowsky's) Request for Variance and our (Ms. Moncharsh's) rebuttal.
You and I have had many discussions over the years about Floor Area Ratios, because I
disagree with the school's and Dudek's suggestion that the school's FAR doesn't include the
underground garage, which is not under any buildings (as in a basement) and according to
18.12.060(e) should be included in FAR (I include local architect letter), which would bring
proposed FAR to .55. In square footage, for purposes of determining Floor Area Ratio, Code
allows 86,800. The school's Request for Variance is asking for 116,000, an increase of
29,200 square feet (33%).
2. As I am studying the WRNS plans, I notice they use the same words, Gross Floor Area,
but in architectural terms, it appears to describe total square footage, above grade and
below grade combined. Plans Page G..001
(http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76996) shows gross floor area
existing as 160,200 and gross floor area proposed as 192,200, an increase of 32,000, or
20%, useable floor area. Also, it should be kept in mind that the garage has an additional
useable floor area of 32,500. Although it mentions below grade parking spaces, the square
footage of the underground is not addressed by WRNS on this sheet G..001 for some reason
I cannot understand, maybe because they didn't design the underground garage?
I bring this up because of the confusion we have had with the terms being used in the Staff
Report meaning one thing, and in the WRNS plans meaning another thing, and that is is
likely confusing for many people reading the plans and not seeing the underground garage
square footage included in the sheet G..001 at all. It is pertinent for the decision-makers,
for informational purposes, to see clearly that the school is asking for 64,700 in additional
useable total floor area (40%), including above grade and below grade square footage and
including the underground garage, over what the school currently has.
I think it would be helpful to mention this in your presentation.
Thank you,
Andie
--
Andie Reed CPA
160 Melville Ave
2.d
Packet Pg. 93
Palo Alto, CA 94301530-401-3809
2.d
Packet Pg. 94
WILLIAM L. McCLURE
JOHN L, FLEGEL
DAN K. SIEGEL
OIANE E. GREENBERG
JENNIFEFI H. FRIEDMAN
IlIINDIE S, ROMANOWSKY
DAVID L. ACH
GREGORY K. KLINGSPORN
NICOLAS A. FLEGEL
KRISTINA A. FENTON
CARA E. $ILVER
JENNIFER A, BEYERS
KIMBERI-'r'B. SAMEK
ADAI\.,I LAZAR
JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McGLURE & F|_EGEL, LLpATTORNEYS AT LAW
1.100 ALMA STREET, SUTTE 2,1 0
I\4ENLo pARK, cALtFORNtA 94026-t3Sz
(s501 324-8300
FACStMtLE (6501 324.0227
www,jsmf,com
OF COUNSEL
KENT MITCHELL
LEIGH F, PRINCE
RETIRED
JOHN D. JORGENSON
MAFiGARET A. SLOAN
DECEA$ED
11/lARVIN S. SIEGEL
(1936,,2012)
JOI"IN R. COSGROVE
{'t s32-2017 )
March 22.2018
Ms. Amy French, AICP
Chief Planning Official
Palo Alto City Hall, Planning & Community Environment
250 Harnilton Avenue, 5th Floor
Palo Alto. C/r 94301
Re:Gastilleja school Request for variance to Maintain E.rristing AboveGrade Floor Area at 1310 Bryant street and '!23s, 1263 EmersonStreet, Pa lo Alto (" P ro perty") ; [1 6 PLN-002SSI [SCH#20 {',1 01 2AS2l
Dear Ms. French:
In connection with the above referenced application, Castilleja School('Ciastilleja") seeks to rernove five (5) buildings that have ,cutlived their ursefrLrl life ('Old
Buildings") and replace them with an energy efficient, 'net-zero ready' brrilding thai willcontain updated, seismically sound classrooms and learning spaces irnien,Ced to bearchitecturally compatible with the surrounding neighbonhood ("New Bruilding"). The
Master Plan also proposes for Castilleja to retain its administrative/chapel buiiding andgymnasium, construct an underground parking garage and improve the Froperty to bothoffset school related impacts and provide amenities to lbenefit the community, which
include landsr:aping, the preservation of mature trees, and the construction of a Tz acre
community park as well as a public bike pavilion. In demolishing the Old Buildings and
repurposing the square footage into the New Building, tl'rel resulting above grade floorareir of the sr:hool will match that which exists today.l Hrlwever, as discussed in this
letter, as a result of the unintended consequences resulting from the lc,wer permitted
1 Based on approverl use permits and as-built plans availablo in the City archives,
Old Buildings totals 134,572 square teet and the above grade square footage for thefeet, as is shown on lhe proposed Master Plan.
the r)urrent above grader t,ctal floor area for the
Neur Building is proposed to be 84,572 square
2.d
Packet Pg. 95
Amy French, AICP
March 22,2018
Page 2
Floor Area Ratio ('FAR") levels of the current R-1 (10,000) Zone (',Zone,,) ResidentialDevelopment Standards, the above grade floorarea will exceed the current limit. Thatsaid, decommissioning the Old Buildings to create a single New Br.rilding will yieldinr;reased open space and community benefits at the Fro[erty,2 as rr-rrtrer described
berlow.
On behalf of Castilleja, this letter serves as a formal request fcrr s yu1"nce tograde 1'loor area at fl.re property, bythe square footage tc, create a new,ent buildiing with updated ,olassrooms
on in the City, of Palo Alto (,,City,,) for the 21_century learrring and beyond.
and buird rhe necessary structures and improveme.?:ilf ::|?3ltHl"-;1ff: i,,::1,?ther existing structures on campus were built prior to the Ciiy's adoptiorr of 1he currentwere constructed after the City,s adoptiont with a use permit making the additional
Castilleja use permits allovy the school to
Nevertheless, going fonviard, rather thanemploy th ol to authorize school use and io establish rsquare footagedevelopm has been the City's historic; practice), tfre,
-City
reques"tsthat Casti ance as a legal tool under the Palo Atto H,tunicipal Code("PAMC'), ing floor area,
dicular Location asti in the hlle ood.The maximum FAR limitations for the Zone were-developed aellroximately g0
yearrs after Castilleja first occupied their site. By way of background,'inaximum FARlimitations are generally developed for residential use inO cJo not-direcfly translate to thedevelopment of a school with its unique programmatic needs. The sam'e is true of otherzoning limitations within the Zone, such as the maximurn lot size (1g,ggg SiF), whichwould not, as a practica.l matter, suppo.rt the physical spac;er requirements of any school.Recognizing that school use is compatible with residential use, the Zone prescribes thatschools are crrnditional uses and provides for the approval of the allowabie building sizeor site area to support the needs of a school. That said, modern zoning lirnitations havebrought unint,ended consequences related to Castilleja's use and dJvelopment of itssite, in that the application of the zoning standards yietcts disparate treaiment of theschrcol site (as discussed below) compared to the surrounding neighbr:rhor:d, whichgrew up around Castilleja, over time,
'zCunent open space at the Property is 1 16,203 SF and the proposed open space at the t>roperty will be 1 26,621 SF.
2.d
Packet Pg. 96
Amy French, AICP
March 22,2018
Page 3
cc ffiJi:,i:ifri..';:';ff.1,?5"Jll[?,';trf iffi:1Jto rea, ln addition, the City's past approval of FAR aboveth' ique circumstance supprrrting a variance which wouldperrmit Castitleja to maintain the status quo related to floor area.
Le
The variance provisions of PAMC Section 18.76 030 provide an alternativemechanism when strict application of the zoning regulations woul<j subierct devetopmentof a site to substantial , constraints or practical clifficulties thai do not norrnallyarise on other sites in vicinity and zoning district. Variances rrray be granteifrom strict application regulations, such as thr: residential FAR limitation forCastilleja, described herein, where specific legal findings can be rnacler. The findingsrequired by the PAMC to grant a variance allowing Castille.la to maintain its existing aidpermitted FAR, and the basis for making those required findings, are disoussed below.
1. lpticable to the property,including , location or surrounOing*,thei strict ; substantialllrl depriu"" i-h"Property property in the vicinity and in the samezoning district."
Castilleja comes to the City with noteworthy circumstances related trr the size,location, and surroundings of its Properly. The scfrool has occupied its s;ite since 1910;before the present residential neighborhood developed around the school, and prior tothe establishment of modern zoning regulations, minimum/maximum lot sizes and/ormaximum FAR standards. Since zoning took effect, Castilleja has operated as aconditionally permitted school use, in accordance with the requiremerrts of the Zone.Ovrer time, the surrounding land was subdivided and home,s weie built, but the size andshetpe of Castilleja's Froperty remains particularly unilclue when cornpared to thesurrounding parcels. To be specific, the Property is 286,,283 square feelt (6.5g acres),but the maxinnum lot size in the Zone is 19,999 SF (.46 acres) and the aveiaEe lot sizeis rnuch_ smaller (appearing to range betweer 00-12,000 square feet (.1g - .2gacres), [See map of the Zone, attached It is undisputable that iastilleja,sProperly is 266,784 square feet (6,12 than the piescribecl maximum lotsizel for the Zone and, even from a hig el review of the oiher prope,rties shown inEx,Ltibit A, the Property is substantially greater in size than any other lojt for the entireZone.
2.d
Packet Pg. 97
Amy French, AICP
March 22,2018
Page 4
The case law on the subject of variances prescribes that granting a variance isgrounded in conditions peculiar to the specific property, as distinguisrlied from otherpropedies within the zone or vicinity. The cases emph;rsize the d-isp,anities betweenproperties, not the treatment of any individual property's r:haracteristics in the abstract.(see Eske/and, 224 cal.App,4th at gb1; see a/so T'opanga Assn, for a scenrcC<tmmunity v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal,3d SrOO, SZO; see a/so Committee toSave Hollywoodland Specific PIan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cert.App.4th ,1168,
1182,1183).
Exhibit A clearly illustrates the Property's unique characteristics as distinguishedfrom other prropefiies within Zone and surrounding vicirrity. By way of specifics, the
illeja's Propefty) is locatedl itt114O Cowper
a lot size of 100,188 SF (t2.3 acres), less
residential l,ct size in the Zlone appears to
e of 50,965.2 (1.17 acres), about 1/6th thesize of the Property' The extreme disparity in lot sizes is particularty detrimental to theCastillela Property because of the formula prescribed by the Zone to calculate permittedFAR. The fonmula c_alculates permitted FAR at ,45 foithr: first 5,000 rqr"r" feet, andthern it drops to .30 for additional square feet. As properties increase in size, themaximum permitted FAR decreases. The calculations on the chart berlow show howthis formula creates a disparate hardship unique to the castilleja property.
Maximum Permitted SF Maximum Permitted FAR
*.45)Permitted SF/Total Lot
As evidenced in the above table, if the average lot size witfrin the Zone is appnoximately10,(100 SF, the maximum permitted FAR for the majority of lots in the Zon,? yields a FARof at least 7.ZVo more than permitted for the Property. Thus, Castilleja's uniquely largeProperty yields disparate treatment related to its developmernf, by its very nature.
2.d
Packet Pg. 98
Amy French, AICP
March 22,2018
Page 5
Due to its size and the FAR discreof the PAMC's site development regul
enjoyed by other property owners in the
and thoughtfully approved FAR above thapplication of the maximum FAR for the Zone woulrJ deprive ther school of itslongstanding historic and permitted use of its property.
Takinl3 into consideration the afore
has designed a site plan to maintain the
through its proposal to denrolish the Old
by removing antiquated institutional buildi
compatible building, designed to include
bulk and mass of the building, as weu as c
from and serve to complement the surrounding homes.
2. Granting the variance shall not affect substantial cornpliance withthe regulations or.constitute a grant of special privilLages inconsistent with thelimitations upon other properties in the vicinity or in thr-'i"r" roninil-olutrl.t.
Granting a variance will not affect suthe Master Plan substantially compliesbuilding height, setback, parking,
requirements, The proposed site coverage i
coverage limitation in the Zanea. The proposed open space will be accomplished by
lecommissiorting the floor area of the Old Buildings and repurposing the square feetinto the New Buildlng.
The request to maintain the above
rather it is a request to maintain the statusopen space characteristics of the prope
historically allowed (via use permits which
buitding site and size to support school use, This variance does nqt propose anincrease to the existing above-grade floor area and all above grade setbercks and othersite development standardsa are met or exceeded,
" The allowable site coverage for the Property is 100,374 slF (3s%) and the proposed sitecoverage is 83,043 SF (30%).
seiback ",i.ljj?;li,ii,!nection
with the proposed undersround parking garage, castitleja lras appried for a Variance for betow grade
2.d
Packet Pg. 99
Amy French, AICP
March 22,2'018
Page 6
3. Granting the variance is consistent ,with thra palo Altocomprehensive pran and purposes of Tifle ,rir (Zoning).
The proposed Master PIan is consistent with certain Land LJse Goals andPc,licies, as set forth in the paro Alto comprehensive plan, as follows:
"An enhanced sense of ,community, with de,uelopmentpublic life and meet city'wide needs and embraceability."
Certain Master Plan amenities are
Buildings and repurposing the floor asite improvements and fostering
example, the Master plan proposes
and Kellogg to serve as a way statio
repair tools and other features, which may inc;lude water or air stations.Additionally, the school intends to construit a lz aere comnrunity park atEmerson Street and Melville Avenue.
Maintaining the floor area at the- Property but repurposing the €iquare footagefrom the Old Buildings into the New Building allovvs for tie inrrptementation ofsustainability measures for the New Building which include e.rlensive fagadeshading by mea ep roof overhangs and- solerr shading r"ro.,nr, renewableenergy solar pa h efficiency arfor all teaching and shared r
durable and sustainable exterior sidin
water efficient plumbing fixtures, gra
with water run-off mitigation, As aMaster Plan impacts and embrac
implernent a robust and forward-thin
("TDM") Frogram which will not only
reducing the transportation irnpacts,
citywide traflic and parking concerns,
ln order to serue a citywide need of providing a non-sectarian,6th-1Zth gradealternative eo^uca!191 for girls (whereby 25-30% of Castilleja students reside inPalo Alto), Castilleja must continue to modify and refine itri educationalcurriculum and facilities to grow with the necessiry adjustments rrf middle andhigh school educational demands, Without ttre anitity io adapt its far:ilities forinCfea nrnnriofa nr,
wi,r be 5:T:'::"'j:1il;,ilTili,.iitll;,,?:;il:iiwhich tarian Zlst century educatici to membersof the Palo Alto community.
2.d
Packet Pg. 100
Anry French, AlCp
March 22,2018
Page 7
"Safe, attractive
racter and within
other public gathering places.,'
residential neighborhoods, each withwalking clistance of...schools and/or
The design and locatjon of the New
the neighborhood. Specific architect
with exposed wood beams, faQadestrellised patios and outdoor covepredominant in the neighborhood. Enabled by the design ancj location of theNew Building, .public open space is increased and inr:ludes the addition of acommunity park at Emerson street and Melville Avenue. The improved seismicand general safety of the New Building renders the school and the surroundingneighkrorhood, a safer place.
design and site planning that
ncl public spaces."
utdated and slrbstantially lower quality thanwill meet tht-' p.rornulgatecl polii:y oi trignquality design and.-site_ planning. As is articulatecl above, the goat of tt,u N"*Building is to specifically create a design on "urpu*; that is more consistent withthe sunrounding neighborhood look andguidelines set forth in the pAMC todgarage and its proposed location takefrom the neighborhood such that the sresidential neighbors, Furthermore, thconstruction of the New Building allo
and pick up internal to the site, anqmove off City streets and onto the school Propelrty, brelow grade, to reduceneighborhood congestion and noise.
and errhance parks and publiclyaces vrithin walking and biking
ing them r.vith a single New Buildinqic access to the property, due to th6e Master Plan aclds a new /, acrecommunity park at Emerson Street abicycle pavilion. The park and bike pa
and will be open and accessible to allgoal is to create a more welcominggathering spaces,
2.d
Packet Pg. 101
Amy French, AICP
March 22,20'18
Page 8
The fi/aster Plan is also consistent with the purpose of the Zene,'nhrch is to"create, itable for detiar:hed dwelling$ with a strongpresenc rding maximunt privacy and r:pportunities foroutdoor
a pub,ic SlJi';,ilL1Jiill:iHilf,H,':fl,i:ffi1?J^{plery, Futlher, there has been great enrphasis placed on the pr"*ur,ltion of maturetrees in order to maintain and enhance the strong presence of nature and affordmaximum privacy for the surrounding residenti hfor detached dwellings. Another intent of the .
an'rong neighborhoods, to provide ade ate I,de$igft." The school adds variety to the :igh r[
open to the public as well as high-quality des rvapplication.
or Jff #ili TJ'#:5ffifffir,ffiH;iJ';ffl1,1saf e or nce.
Approving the variance enables the
designred to be visually compatible with thand allows for increased open spaoe, as
Maintaining the existing floor area at the
health, safety, general welfare, or convenie
been thoughtfully designed to comply
underground parking garage) with circ
neigrhborhood, public healtl'r and generar werfare of the
In totality, a variance to maintain the existing FAR on the propertyr would not bements in th itv while
tely from thr rty. fne
allow bus d to move
nd trash functi e <tff City streetsto reduce ne congestion andrhood. The p rnature trees atI prioritized and the proposerC landscapingwill be thoughtfully designed for neighhorhood compatibility. Taken in tortality, Castiilell
2.d
Packet Pg. 102
Amy French, AICP
March 22,2018
Page 9
is confident these design considerations will-promote public health and safety for thevicinity while enhancing the general welfare or irre neign6ornooo
evidence by which the City canto maintain the existing above
requests that the City make the
cc: Hillary Gitelman, Director of plan
Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of Pfanning and Community EnvironmentNanci Kauffman, Head of Castilleja School -
Kathy Layendecker, Associate Head of School for Finance and Operations
Enclosure; Exhibit A IR-1 (10,000) Zonel
2.d
Packet Pg. 103
2.d
Packet Pg. 104
DONNA M. VENERUSO (d.'09)
LEILA H, MONCHARSH
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
I.AW OFFICES
VENERUSO & MONCHARSH
5707 REDWOOD ROAD, SUITE 10
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94619
TELEPHONE (510) 482_0390
FACSIMTLE (510) 482-0391
Email: 10155O@msn.com
September 18, 2018
Re:
Dezu Ms. Frenoh:
My client, PNQL, opposes castilleja School's applicatio'for a zoning.,ra*ianr:e allowingconstruction of an84,572 square foot institutional abovi-grouncl structure, *ii.t, excr:eds theallowable floor area ratio (FAR) under the zoning code. C-astilleja is also not entitled to thevariance because the proposed skucture violale9 the Co*prehensive Plan. The proposed buildingis incompatible with thS,sunoturding residential neighborirood. cranting the vaijrmce wouldillegally bestow a special privilege on Castilleja since the city has not al-lowed other p:roperties inthe same zone and vicinity to exceed the FAR-reshiction in the zoning code.
Furthermore, if Castilleja eventually moves in the future, the city could.firnd itr;elf
burclened with an 84,5?2 square foot structure on the property that will te hard to repurpose dueto its size, Developers generally are hesitant to pay the repurpose or demolition crcsts lbr such aIarge building. 'Today's decisions about the configuration-of ihe property may well dictate thecity's options fr:r future uses of the property. fhelity council sh'ouli deny the rrlquest for avariance.
A. Requested variance for A combined Building ot grt,s72 square Feet
On Marrlh 22,2QI8, Castilleja applied for a variance that rvould facilitate ,Cem6lishing
f,tve existing buildings and then combining-the square footage of those five demolishecl buildingsinto one new large building' ltre school believes that the city planner's decision t6 require avariance is due to "unintended consequences because the flooi are,a ratio" will ex*eed the currentFAR for residential properties in the R-l zone. It argues that the ,c,onstruction of t1e g4,572
square foot building is necessary because the older buildings it wishes to demolish cannot bebrought up to today's green and seismic building standardsl Further, the commurnity 1a;1'll receivebenefits because the single structure will allow for a half-acre corrm:unity park anria prrblic bikepavilion. Castille.ja also argues that historica[r, the city has grante,d permits for (J'stilllja,s
requests to develop its property as it wishes. Therefore, r"us*, Castilleja, the cirry should issue avariance now and continue allowing Castilleja to deveiop its prope:rty as it pleases. We disagreewith the school's analvsis.
2.d
Packet Pg. 105
Amy French, Chief Planning Offrcial
City of Palo Alto
2li0 Hamilton, 5tn Fl,lor
Palo Alto, CA9430l
Re: Castilleja Project
September 18,2018
Page2
g a variance because the square footage of the
zones, By conlaining the size o.f a building on
limit the number of persons who will be using
It appears lleja wishes to denrLolish would not be permittedtodlay without a v footage would violate the current:zoning codeFA.R 1br the zone Combining the sgrare footage of all thr: fivebuildings Castilleja wishes to demolish and placing the sluare fi,otage all i"n on.e huge buildingdoos not prevent the nreed for a variance from the peR ,.rt i"tion. It-would just convert fivesmall buildings into one huge, very institutional appearing building, in the -iaat" or,, single-family residential neighborhood.
As of this writing, Castilleja has not yet submitted plans srhowing the deterils o:f,theproposed 84,572 square foot building, Therefore, the planner cannot detirmine by how much theproposed new building exceeds the FAR for the zone. However, there is no disprlte frpmCatrtilleja that its proposed project requires a variance for the proposed g4,572irquare footbuilding,
Castilleja in its plans to herlp theneighborhood lby riven exclusively by ttreschool's desire to That desire and the rest of thereasons Castilleja offerslo support its request for a variance do not justifu grantir:rg one, whichwill open the door for other institutions in the sar e zoneand viciniiy to cla"im the,i arer alsoentitled to the equal privilege. Eventually, the FAR would become meaningless. lis shownbelow, Castille.ja has not met its burden to demonstrate with facts and law that it is eligible for avariance under the city's zoning code.
B. Castilleja Has Failed to Demonstrate that It Is Entitled to A Variance
The city code provides that variance permits are intended to address uniqu.e constraintsthat would make it a hardship for the developer to comply with the zoning code restrictions:
The purpose ofa variance is to:
2.d
Packet Pg. 106
Arny French, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton, 5'n Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Castilleja Project
September 18,2018
Page 3
(1) Provide away for a site with special physical constraints, resullting
from natural or built features, to be used inways similar to otherr sites in
the same vicinity and zoning district; and
(2)
_
Provide a way to grant relief when strict application of tnre zoning
regulations would subject development of a site to substantial hardships,
constrainls, or practical difficulties that do not normally arise on other
sites in the same vicinity and zoning district.
(Section 18.76,030)
No particular physical constraints or hardships are preventing the campus from 6eing used inways similar to other sites such that it would qualify for a varian,:e from the zoning F,ARrestriction. Therefore, castilleja is not entitled to the grant of oner.
a. There are no unique physical constraints on the Castilleja campus
Castilleja argues that it meets the criteria because it has a unique tristory. It bu:ilt its
structures before the city's adoption of the zoning code with FAR denJity restrict:ions. After thepasliage of the zoning oode, the city allowed the school to build and remodel strurltures incompliance not enforce the FAR restriction, Furrlher, theFAR applie ons. (3/22118 Letter, page 2t .7 Flowever, the
burden was I constraints due to "ut*ut or 6uilt feafuresprevented it from being used in ways similar to other sites in the same vioinity or zoning district.(Walnut Acres .Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1313-l3l5 (Walnut Aues).) The city historically allowing -Castilieja to construot larger buildings thanwould be permitted today does not meet that test.
b. There is no showing that Castilleja would sudfer a
substantial hardship without a variance
Castilleja contends that if the city denied a variance from the FAR restrir:tion, it woulddisproportionally constrain Castilleja's property compared to otherr parcels in the vicinity.
(Letrter, page 3') Howcver, zoningregulations are deslgned to restrict the use of propertres.
Wherther they do so disproportionately is not relevant to ttre legal requirernent that tle applicantdem'onstrates "substantial hardship" to qualify for a varian.". Fo, example, hardship is
something that'would trrrevent profitability. Walnut Acres, suprq, is instructive. In that case, thedeveloper applied for permits to build a 50,289 square foot elderarre faciliw in a low-clensiw
' All r:itations to a "Letter" are referring to the one written by Castilleja's attornrey, Mindie Romanows(/, to cifyplanner Amy Frenc;h and dated March22,20lB.
2.d
Packet Pg. 107
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto
2i;0 l{amilton, 5s Fl,ror
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Castilleja Project
September 18,2018
Page 4
ounding Castill:ja. The Los An;geles zoning code
veloper argued that the growing; dernand for
are footage to comply with the zoning code, it
s and thus, would deprive Los Angeles ofneeded senior services' T'he city council granted the variance requested by the d,evelc,per and theneighborhood association filed a lawsuit. The superior court ruldd in favor of thr: neiljhbors andset aside the permit. The court of appeal rejegted the property owner's reasons frlr itsippealbecause there was no substantial evidence
-ot
a naras[ip:'
There was no evidence that a facility with l6 rooms could not be profitable.Eldercare homes apparently include small homes with fow to l0 beds, ar:cordingto the zoninc a{ninisJrator's report. There was no evidence that necessary ,ulrportservices demanded additional rooms in rrder to generate a profit. Just as instolmanv. city of Los Angeres,supra, 114 cal.Appage4tt6utpug" 926,tlrcrewasno "information from which it [could] be determined-whethei ttr-. p.odt [was] solow as to amount to ,ururecessary hardship' ,'
(lilalnut Acres, strpra, at page 1315,)
evidence that if it is required to
iriction it will become
s larger strucflrr,es thrur the FAR
Iit will suffer "substantial
Ly arise on other sites in thesanre vicinity zmd zoning district," (Zoning Code Section 1s.76.0;0.21a"rorolngly, ttre citycouncil should deny Castilleja's request for a variance to construct a184,572rqi*" footstructure.
There also is no showing by the school that the FAR woul.d only apply to residences andnot to institutions. Typically, the city would ation to the insrtitution,slocation. We expect that the F'AR applicable rntown palo Alto or jitsindustrial area would be more flexible for an o build there than a F,AR thatapplies to single-family zones' There is nothing in Castilleja's arg;ument that shor,vs complyingwith the cunent FAR would prevent the school from usinjits property due to phy,sical or naturalconstraints, which do not exist for other similar propertiesl Noi odes ii show that r:omprliancewith the FAR restriction would create a hardshii that would not apply to other institutions in thesame zone and vicinity. The school's problem is that it wants to re-arrange its strurctures so that itcan accornmodate a much higher enrollment than what it has now, but that is the very reason for
'All section references are to the palo Alto Zonins Code.
2.d
Packet Pg. 108
Arny French, Chief l,lanning Official
City of Palo Alto
250 Elamilton, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Castilleja Froject
September 18,2018
Page 5
the FAR restriction - to prevent a high level of density incompartible with the inr;titution,ssunounding neighborhood.
Without the variance requirement, and just relying on ttrer existing conditional use permitfor density, as the school would prefer, the school *outA Ur able to keepleekinp;mo6ificationsof its conditional use permit for more enrollment, The variance requirernent prei,ents the schoolfrom building its properfy to accommodate unfettered growth that depend, on th. ,,pglitics of thedalr'" 1nt,.ud, the variance restriction relates to the ciryis interest in not having ttre project siteuse excessive oity resources, to the detriment of the overall, surrounding infra-stn:ciuremaintained by the city. For example, the larger the allowable derrsity, tlie more people who canbe on the camPus' That means more cars patt ing on the streets, rnore traffrc for r;tudents andemployees on city streets, and more city services to maintain those streets, provirle protection,
arrcmge for galbage disposal, and the like.
It is not in the city's interest to grant a variance. FurthemLore, the city cprmcil does nothave the factual or legal basis for making the findings for granting a variancl"
c. The city council Does Not Have a Basis for the Firndings
Necessary to Grant a Variance
The zoning code only allows the city council to grant an arpplication for a varigce bymaking specific findings. It would have to find, in relevant part, tili of the following:
1. That there at'e special physical circumstances that exist on the property whichwould cause the strict application of the FAR to deprive Castilleja oipriv,ilege,
enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and the same zoning aistrict as
Castille.j a's property;
2.That the special personal circumstances peculiar to Castilleja does not fbrm anyconsideration for granting a variance;
3' That the granting of the application would not affect substantial compliimce with thezoning regulations;
4' That the grant of a variance will not constitute a grantof special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations upon other propertiis in the vicinmy and 1ithe
same zoning district as the subject property;
5' That the granting of the variance is consistent with the General Flan: an,:l
2.d
Packet Pg. 109
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto
2jj0 l{amilton, 5th Fl,oor
Prrlo Alto, CA94301
Re: Castilleja Project
September 18,2018
Page 6
6' That the granting of the application will not be detrinrental or injurious toprope:rty or irnprovements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the publi<lhealth, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
(Section 18.1:2.030, subd. (c)")
1. There,ar rat exist on Castillejarsproperty wh of the F,AR to rlepriveCastilleja of in the vicinity ernd thesame zon)rng properfy
s that the school's parcel is different ftom then square feet, bu1 that is irrelevarLt when
rivilege to Castilleja that is not enjoyecl by other
a had the burde:n to list properti.es in the sameprivilege of ex<rceding the FAI{. It has failed tould deny the application for a variance.
grant a ;T:;lHi,',i.:i:','J.".li::r,|;xljl;:?:ffi[Tl#l,Ti.ifi,individ cs in the abstract." (Lettei, page 4.) That is true but rs out ofcontext' A city can properly grant a variance when strict enfoic<,rnent of the FAR restrictionwould prevent safety problems or a propert{ gy.r from enjoyirn,g the same amenities enjoyed byo\Mlers of properties in the same zone and vicinity
For example, in ltar (2Ci'1) 224 t!,al.App.4th936,cited bycastilleja, the appellate f a variancq keeping in mind that other houses inthe same area were able that the prop"rtv ,cwner wanted to include in hisrebuilt home' The variance application requested a variance from the setback zon:ing restrictionso that the owner of a house could rebuild it on a very steep hiilsi,le. The .it ;;.; its decisionto grant a variance because the steepness of the hill restricted its d.evelop*.rrt potential. UnlikeCastilleja, the prroperty owner demonstrated that without a variance, he could not consrrucr ahouse with the same arnenities as other houses within the same arr:a. The lack of ar variancewould restrict lnim to build a house that would adversely irnpuo rthe steep slope zrnLd landform.Also, if the city denied the variance, the driveway to the ttour. wc,uld be ,,very steep ancldangJerous. " (Id. at 952,)
s (1t008) 161 Cal.Aprp.4th il68,
grant of a variance :[rom the three_
n because there vras an adequate showing ofproperty owner had constructecl a wooden fence
2.d
Packet Pg. 110
Arny French, Chief planning Official
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Castilleja Project
September 18, 2018
Page 7
on top of a 1920s historic masoffy wall, ins rk from the wall. (1d., atpage1172,) The court concluded that there was e if the city had rerquirr:d a three_
t a backyard, zurd all of the
s below glade, which made enfcrrcing the
lso, the thrqe-foot setback, if applied, would
cause a safety hazard:
Fufther, the rade o,n a winding street, and enforcing therequirement significant risk b-y providing a gap bei-ween thewall and yar and debris coutA fal. T] e fact t'Lat otnerproperties in the areamay have a similar below-grade corrfiguration andl 4o no,thave such fences does not detract from the nr..rlrity of runiiorating it, --
substantial safety hazardwhich would remain if the City r;trictly eniorce,d thesetback requirement.
(1d., at page I 184.)
Castille.ja's third cited case also does notthe size of resiclential lots and the size of Castill
unted the support for granting the variance,
mand for n_ew low-cost housirLg, presumably
provide a fir,e break, and that othir uses such
explained that these considerations were lega'y;*5fl#- ' (Id'' atpage 520') 'fhen, the court
These dat4 we oonclude, do not constitute a sufficient sho'wing to satisfy the
e permitted] ,,onLly when, becausie ofperty, . . . the str.ict application of the
leges enjoyed by other property
cation.', Lhis language
r, not the treatment of the subject
smail fraotion of'anv one zone can qualify fl::x#ffiliat<x that at best' onlv a
(1d., atpage 520.)
2.d
Packet Pg. 111
Amy French, Chief .planning Official
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton, 5fr Floor
Palo Alto, cA 94301
Re: Castilleja project
September 18, 2018
Page 8
Here, castilleja has not shown in what way it cannot construct its improvements bystaying within the FAR restriction. It also has not demonstrated that other prip.rti* near it havebeen allowed to builcl in contravention to those restrictions. Thus, there is oo ,urrrt*tial hardshippreventing castilleja from construoting new buildings due to sai:ety problems, leurd configurationlirnitations, or otherwise as occurred iitwo of its cit-ed cases. I.Ior ilas it shownLthat the city haswaived the same restrictions for surrounding properry o ;.
Like the deve'toper in Topanga' castilleja has only come up with inelevamt arguments to. For example, it argues that the fbriowing supporls itiposition:tage of sunor{ing properties compared-with its square footage,permits for buildings on the site, that the new bui,tding will be
building wil be archirecturaltr.?dJ,"T.1i:h5X$?ii,""ff"111i3,1"##;nS,'l#i::"
sh'w that the school cannot build on its campus without a variance.
castilleja argues that it needs the variance to meet cunenit code and seisnric stimdards,but it does not show why the lack of a variance prevents it from upgrading its existing buildingsbuildings le.1g than 94,572,qu,u.. i..t *l .ornf,tying with thee footage with a new plan that incorporates thiJlarge,
any legal requirement for
" Castilleja believes that the new.*,1 ith the neighborhood, that also
'rlj,
"n:or.
lghbors are recei'ving some
The city council should deny the variance application,
2' Grantiug the variance will affect substantial cornpliance with theregulations and will constitute a grant of special pniivileges inconsistentwith the rimitations upon other propertiesin the vicinitj o. ru-" roo.
Castilleja
(Letter, page s.j t ies with the zoning code
zoning code is on ct that substanti'ly meets the
variaurces that a:re e rules ror the zone. Here, .*,r iJ:l"ll"lH.ffiTlf#l'iflff'use permit' encroachments into public easements, a variance to construct a building that violates
lff X,*ftr#r another variani i1g,rtUu.t r.-quir._.r,ts Uv e,r"rcluchirng into
permits - each is ' The city does not!$r19 to grant any of these
grant, not rights that the: ciry must grant," .,o'o"lL#i.TL"Tn:['Jif5;:rtHlJ'i'":iff;tl,
2.d
Packet Pg. 112
Arny French, Chief planning Official
City of Palo Alto
250 Flamilton, 5th Flc,or
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Castilleja Project
September 18,2018
Page 9
failed to show nearby neighbors are enjoying. PNQL is aware ol'nobody else in theneighborhood" who has exceeded the FAR oi obtained a varianor: to do so.
The far:t that historically, the city.has granted permission to build out the site ;in a waythat exceeds the current FAR restriction is not a legaliy cognizat,le reason to gra:nt a variance, asdiscussed above. Castilleja has cited no cases that i'routo sippo:rt such an interprr:tation of thecit1"5 t.outtement to make specific findings. For this reason,'al,s<1, the city shoull deny theapplication for a variance"
3' Granting the Requested variance is Inconsistent urith theComprehensive plan
Castilleja references goals and land use
con
bin<
Plar
deterrmining whether the application for a variance violates the Clp. Below are t6e, relevantsections from each, the housing and land use elements:
L:_ apprrcpriate transitions frornruB ty resirlential disticts topre
An 84,572 squa a residential neighborhood does not conform withthe eLbove polic'y' The tr placing large buildings in close proximity u.ithsingJte-family homes in the one suioundingtastilleja, vyhich is low-density, residential.
Policy L-1.1 Maintain and prioritize palo Alto,s varied re:sijenliu, neighbc,rhoods whilesustarining the vitality of its commercial areas anr public facilities (Land Use"elenoent.)
Policy L-1,5 Regulate land uses in Palo Alto according to the land use definitions in thisElement and Mzrp L-6.
Policy L-1.6 Encouage land uses that address the needs of'the community and managechange and development to benefit the community.
Policy L- 1,7 Use coordinated area plans Lent, such as to create orenhance cohesive neighborhoods in areas of pal ficant change is foreseeable.Address both land use and transportation, define tl ;ter and urban design traits ofthe areas, identify opportunities for public open space, parks and recreational opporfunities,
2.d
Packet Pg. 113
Amy French, Chief lllanning Official
City of Palo Alto
2ii0 Hamilton, 5fr Floor
Palo Alto, cA 94301
Re: Castilleja Project
September 18,2018
Page l0
address connectivity to and compatibility with adjacent residerrtial areas; and include broadcommunity involvement in the planning process.
Policy L-1'11.Hold.new development to the highest de,rolopment standards i1order tomaintain Palo Alto's livability and achieve the highesiquality rJr:velopment witl the leastimpacts,
These policies, above, demonstrate that the city has priclritized its residerrtial
roviding sufficient housing, these policies
dance of disturbing the characteristir:s of
hborhoods is assruing that substantial buildings,
ar single-family houses. The instjitutional
wrren cast'reia is done with the site and."y","*:*HJ,XTH::'1il3il$j::ffffi;'"fiii'-
present problems for repurposing it into much-needed housing, The demolition cost of asubstantial institutional buildingls sufficient to discouragal.u.l,rp.r, from builcling on the site,
verse, inclusive c,ommunity, allo,w and
ghborhoods and dt:signed for
s studios, co-housing, cottages,
Policy I--2'7 support efforts to retain housing that is more affordable in existingneig;hborhoods, including a range of smaller frouri"g"typ." ^'
Policy L-2'8 when considering infill redevelopment, work to minimize displacement ofexisting residents.
Policy l,-2,9 Facilitate reuse of existing buildings.
Policy ['-3'1 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are crompatible wit]r theneighborhood and adjar:ent structures.
The subject neighborhood includes a mi
croached deeply into the neighborhoori. The
2.d
Packet Pg. 114
Amy French, Chief I,lanning Official
Ci.ty of Palo Altr
250 Hamilton, 5ft Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Castilleja Project
September 18, 2018
Page 1l ,
city should follow the above policies and stop the encroachments, including allgwin*;construction of a huge institutional building and garage in the rniidle of thJneighborhood,
Castilleja's argument that it wishes to tear down old butldings for seismic ancl coderea'sons violates p91i:v L2.9, which requires the city to facilitate reuse of existing buildings. Theproposed huge building also directly vi,olates L-3.1 because its proposed new building is notcompatible with the surrounding single-family housing, which isr why it is s"etirrg a .,rariance
from the FAR restriction.
ordinance No -5446: In May 2018, Palo Alto citizens ga1;hered sufficient signatures topla'ce an initiaf ive on the ballot to cap the amount of office *a nlo (research and development)development at 850,000 square feet. on July 30,2018,the palo r\lto city council passedorclinance 5446, atrcnding portions of the io:o-co*prehensive plan to includ,l this cap. TheOrclinance contains the following finding:
2, Palo Alto crmnot Torerate More Trafflrc: According to the city,s own study,there ale aheady about three jobs in the City for every ernployed resident As 'result, the City has one of the highest commuter ratios irr the nation for cirties withpopulations of more than fifty thousand. Excessive new office/R&D developmenrin Palo Alto-as the recently adopted 2030 Comprehensive plan allows-wi.[lead to even more jobs and thuJexac^erbate trafhc congestion and parkingshortages in the City' Two{hirds of City residents citJth,ese issues ur n"u]otconcerns" (Ord:inance 5446, page 2.)
While the ordinance caps new office zurd R&D developrnent, it includes the finding
1bo19: indicating an intention to reduce traffic from commuters .irr the city, The only reasonC.asilleja is seeking to construct an84,572 square foot building isrbecause of its .oncomitantplan to add over 100 more students and eventually become a school of 540 studerrts, along withemployees to serve them. A substantial institutional buildin! accommodating increasedenrollment on the campus will further add to traffic rong"rttn from commuter shrdents andemployees, in contradiotion to the citizens' amendmentlo e Cornprehensive pnan.
Castilleja cites two other CP policies, but they are relevant to dilTbrent parts of llalo Alto thanresidential neighborhoods,-(Letter, page z,) Policy 6.I applies to Elmployment Districts -- thedesigpof buildings and.public tpuri 1be, pages 45-46) *d ror.y 9.6 appties to rarks andGathering places - public streets and public 1na9es (cP, p[;r 50-151). Furthermqrr:, castilleja,sargunents under these 1.wo policies are illogical and irrelerint to the legal test for whether thecify srhould grarfi avarirurce.
For example, Castilleja contends that demolishing older buildings and builling one newcolossal structure will allow "fot more site improvementi and fosterJl i enhancedlsense of
2.d
Packet Pg. 115
Amy French, Chief .planning Official
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Castilleja project
September 18, 2018
Page 12
commurity" including a bike pavilion at the corner of Bryant md Kellogg and a halll-acrecc'mmunity park at Elmerson street and Melville Avenue, cast.illeja does not explain how any ofthese items will build a sense of communi.ty. rhl n.igFrbotr
"ever requested a bike waystation ora park open to the public. A park in the midst of hourlng "* be,3e111s^4 nuisancer very quicklydue to noise, lack of supervision ance, and inapprc,p,liale behavior by patrons,especially after dark' To no neighbor has arsked for inclusion of either apublic park or: bike ways in the schoot's mast"r"plan. ile r.sio"nts are not looking for a"sense of cornmunity" that would mean expanding their involve:ment with people who do notlive in the neighborhood or for public uses for ,,armore
we,lcoming environment wiletrue*ir,*v,,ighborhood ffffi::;JH::l#iniJ,ffi#i,itherir neighborhood to the public.
castilleja describes all of the design features it intends to include in the new building aspoi;itive improvements' (L ) The cP shesses the importance of maintaining andreusing existing buildings' nts no evidence that i cannot remodel its existingsbrrctures with the improvemer 4describes. Moreove:,, as shown abov,e, a robusttransportation demand management plan, an excellent education for young girls, an undergroundgatage' increased open space, and the like are not relevant to the legal question ofwhether thecity should grant a va'iance from the FAR restriction,
contraly to its claim that it complies with the R-1 zone restrictions, casti,[eja,s proposedmas;ter plan violates its zoning prohibition against the encroachment of schools i'to thisprinnarily residential z'rne' Its pioposed,nur6, plan profosls ieurolition of two houses with noreplacement housing:
The R-it single-family residential district is intended to create, preserve, andenhance areas suitable for detached dwellings with u .irong presence of nertureand with open area affording maximum priv"acy unJ-opportu"ities for outctoorliving and children's play. Minimum site area;q;l;#."ts are establishedttocreate and preserve variety among neighborhoods, to provide uoequate op,rr, *ru,and to encouraE e quality design. Accessory dwelling units, juniorl.r.rril,fdwelling units zurd accessory itru"tutes or
-buildings" ,. upp.op iate. comnnunit.yuses antlfacilitles, such as churches and schools,"sh uld be limited unles,s tlo lt€tloss of housing .wourd resutt. (3/2211g letter, pug, g; io^ngcode, section18,12.01 0, subd.. (a) - emphasis added,)
castilleja attempts to get around the zoning restriction by arguing that it is contritrutingto the neighbortrood a park and a_bike wayslation, which doe! not address the R- I intentthat the neighborhood consists of primariiy single-famit h;;ri"g It arso does notaddress the loss of housing at a time whenthe ieed is ui* uir.+ioo,r high in palo Alto.
2.d
Packet Pg. 116
I Official
4, Granting {he variance wp rop erry in irr e "i.il;;; #Jlfl ,T.|i*ffi:li*" lnj uri o us ro
For all for: the ab've reasons, the city council shourd refuser to grant a variar:Lce.D' The clityJvlust Include in the D-EIR A Discussion About the Impacts of theMaster Plan Due tc it Not booro"-iffit,h",i,; zoningand comprehensive pran
.orpr.,rti ilTtX.i|t|ild
the timeline, the variance issue arose after rtLe scoping session. Dudek
February 8, tbit,;;;; and the Notice of Scopi;ng srrrin"n *u* ,Cut.a
ttre citv:unii tiy.ur'tun , for a variance as to the nelw briiJ;g;"s not senr to
a variance to the F ,,n,r'
n*Qt did not realize that Castillej? f,trtno".tto seekflrislsprimar'vd nngi 1,3:il:ffi,111,?ff:;.ffiff;
all of its document bmission when the planner reques' cl them. Even at this very latedate, thi: plan showin gthe 84,572 square root ptopoi;;;i;;. has not been submirlted to theciry and therefore, it has not been made availaLle io the ilit"
{Jnder "Land Use md Planning," Dudek, the author of the Irritial Study (3.10) states:"The proposed pro.iect has the potential to have significant impacts le,lated to tompat.ibility withneighboring land uses and thus land use impacts-will be analyzed in the project EIR,,,(page 31,)It concludes that no mitigations are necessary. However, it does not irlentiff the conflLict betweenthe proposed project with the CP and the zoning code. The Initial Study requires sturdy if theproject r,vould:
Conflict wiLh any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency withjurisdiction over the project (incnuding . . . general plan . , . zoning ordiiance,l
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environnrental effect?
CP policy L-2'9 (facilitatirng reuse of buildings) and L-3.1 (compatibility with adjacent
structures) are related to environmental effects. L-2.9 removes the need ior .,ntr.""rsa.ry disposal
2.d
Packet Pg. 117
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA9430l
Rer: Castilleja Project
September 18, 2018
Page 14
to the preservation of historic rJishicts and
sunounding Ctastilleja. Ordinance 5445, by itsaway to reduce traffic impacts, an
We look forward to the city council requiring Ca-stilleja to submit a rev:ised master planthat does not include requests for variances. rtrank /ou for.orrria.rirrg ou, .o*rrrntr.
Very truly yorrs,
fu_kt_4
Leila H. Moncharsh,, J.D., M.U.p,
Veneruso & Moncharsh
LHM: lm
cc: Clients
2.d
Packet Pg. 118
JORGENSON, StEg-E-L, McCLURE & FLEGEL,ATTORNEYS AT LAWIlOO ALMA STREET, SUITE 210MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025.It392
,o " r,tJ,uroJ ir'r';i'rti rr'
www,J6mf,com
LLP
WILLIAM L. [IccLURI:
JOHN L. FLEGEL
DAN K, SIEGEL
DIANE S, GREENBERG
JENNIFER H, FRIEDMAN
MINDIE S. ROMANOWSKY
DAVID L, ACH
GREGORY K. KLINGSPORN
NICOLAS A. FLEGEL
KRISTII{A A, FENTON
CARA E, SILVER
JENNIFER A, EEYERS
KIIT4BERLY B. SAMEK
AOAM LAZAR
OF COUNSEL
KENT MITCHELL
LEIGH F, PRINCE
RETIRED
JOIJN D. JORGENSON
I"lIARGARET A, SLOAN
DECEASED
I.,|A.RVIN S, SIEGEL
(1S36.20.t21
J')HN R, COSGROVE
119 32-2017 ')October 9, 2018
Ms. Amy Frerrch, AlCp
Chief Planning Official
Palo Alto City Hall, planning and Community Environment250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Fioor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Rr'esponse to PNQL Letter (dated september 18,.2018_) regarding castilleja schoolRtequest for Variance to Miintain lxistrnj nooinr""iatii 1;Variernce nequest,; at1310 Bryant street and 1235, s eme"rson street, p"i;Ait;i;pr.,iurtv,,);
[16pLN-002b8;SCH#201701 l](,,npptication,lr
Dear Ms. French:
nt to the City on September 18,/ou are aware, the letter states:e and demands that Castilleia
castillejia's Master Plan is currently the subie_ct of a comprehensive envirclnmental review,which wirr resurt in the pubrication of a Drai environrnlniri't,ipr.t Report ri,,DErR,,),
Upon publication of the DEIR, as mandated by CEeA, therewill be ample oppcrrtunityfor
il:TffiSn:j.the public to review the findinss and comment on the apprir:ation, inciuoing
N:\DATA\clients\protected\casliileja\corres\{silstiFrenchAVarResponseLtr ro g.1 8.docx
2.d
Packet Pg. 119
Ms. Amy French, AfCp
October 9,2018
Page 2
o These comments, as well as staff recommendations, will be considered as part of an3""#,*?i;'"'fl ir:""ffJ:ll,,Jl', require ;;'L;-;; the prarrning':u-;i-r,'un',port"tion
' During the public hearing process' we look fonruard to ouflining the strong legal and factualunderpinnings which sufport our varianc" ,"qr"ri, - --
s, Castilleja remains confident that itsy City Codes and will be supported byo going through the very public and
cc: Client
Jonathan Lait
James Keene
Ed Shikada
Mofly Stump
James R, Sutton, Esq.
Sincerely,
N:\DATA\Crients\protected\castiileja\corres\castiFfenchAvarResponseLtrl
0.g.1 8.docx
2.d
Packet Pg. 120
2.d
Packet Pg. 121
From:Andie Reed
To:Architectural Review Board
Subject:Castilleja Neighbors" Packet
Date:Friday, August 14, 2020 8:53:42 PM
Attachments:ARB-PNQLpacketAug2020.PDF
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear ARB members,
(David and Peter already received hard copies of this packet today)
Here is some background on our neighborhood group PNQLnow.org. We have beenorganized for more than 4 years. We hope it will give you context as you review theCastilleja project, and will help you understand our perspective as we try to get the schooland the City to limit the scope of the project.
Thanks,AndiePNQLnow.org
--
Andie Reed CPA160 Melville Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
530-401-3809
2.d
Packet Pg. 122
PNQLnow.orq
Preserve Neighborhood euality of Life v
August 77,2020
Dear Architectural Review Board Mernber,
we are a loos;ely o.rganized group of neighbors of castilleja who have been meetingand working 1[ogether over the past 4 -'5 years to timit the expansion plans,
Attached is ar and what many of our neighbors are inagreement at live on the suirounding streets. we are inthe process o see the project working its way through thesystem and d aspects.
The attached castilleja Neighbors summary statement and the additional 2documents will give you our perspective ancl how we have tried to reasonablyinfluence the process and get oui concerns addressed.
€^---1,.-
Andie Reed
Hank Sousa
PNQL steering committee members
Visit our website: F,NeLnow.org
2.d
Packet Pg. 123
Proposed Castilleia
Summarv Stiatement p
situation: castilleja, a private middle and high school located in an R-1 neighborhood, has submitted to the city of palo Altoa proposal to significantly remodel its campus and increase enrcllment by 30% tprrs ,nrpe.itied increases in faculty/staff)
Neighbors, who have already borne the brunt of the private school's significant groMh over many years, challengecastilleja's plan to increase.the size and scope of its operation on thii very small parcel. we urge the city to deny approval ofan enrollment increase, and not permit the outsized redevelopment propoials, for the following reasons:
2' outsized nature of the project: The school is proposing 200,00_0 sf of buildings on a one-block (26g,000 sf) lot.For comparison, imagine a Costco ... or two-City Halls oi Home Depots ,.. located on one small block in aresidential neighborhood.
3' Castilleja's Conditional Use Permit (GUP) is far more lenient than neighboring private schools, permits.Other privak,'schools in Palo Alto and nearby towns are held to much stricter standards, such as specified hours ofoperation, less density, Jew or no night events, and none allow an underground garage in a residentialneighborhood' why is castilleja exempt fronn similar conditions? No locil privaie ..ioot. are permitted more than20 events per year, Castilleja hosts 100+ events per ye,ar.
lhensive plan statutes,
[/C 18.76.10 will,,not be
and shall"be located an
lan siates that the city ',seeks to promote community
f the residential neighborhoods." When the school was
d future plans far exceed what is appropriate for this site.
5' City's prior rlirective assuring the neighbo,rhood of no future expansion, In 2000, palo Alto planning DirectorJohn Lusardi was forceful in his CUp approval letter to r3astilleja: ,,The approved Con'ditional (Jse permit does not
subsequenf request for additionalsfudenls wiil not beting to g school enrollment for
)ofs o ignored by Castilleja
the C s own 2000 directive.
alo Al
6' Continuous violation ' Castilleja has exceecled its exis;ting enrollment cap for the last 19 years, collecting millions
:nforce CUp violations, and neighbors have no viable
no confidence that future cUp conditions will be met, nor that
n students, plus accompanying parents, teachers, staff, and
For years neighbors have asked the school to work together in good faith, asking the school to reduce enrollmr-.nt to theallowed level, and institute a robust shuttle by which nL.t studenir;/staff would be delivered to campus. lnstead the school hasmoved ahead with outs;ized plans, far more expansive than other schools are allowed (see chart attached,)
No neighborhood would welcome this type of unbridlecl growth frcm a private entity in its midst. The City Council has anobligation to protect and preserve the rights of its citizenJ, and to enforce its own codes.
We urge the City to oppose this application. lf the school wishes t,o expand, the City should require it to follow the example ofother private schools and divide into two appropriately-r;ized campuse,s, or move to a larger location which will supporl as
2.d
Packet Pg. 124
many students as it desires, or require ALL arrivals/clepaftures by shuttle from a satellite parking area, signiticanly reducingthe impact not only on this neighborhood, and the Bike BoulevarO, Ouion ail palo Altans.
Thanks for your time and attention.
- Neighbors of Cas;tilleja (surrounding btocks)July 2020
Al Kenrick
Amber La
Andie Reed
Bill Schmarzo
Bill Powar
Bruce Mcleod
Carla Befera
Carolyn Schmiarzo
Chi Wong
David Quigley
Debby Fife
Diane Rolfe
tid Williams
Geegee Williarns
Han Macy
Hank Sousa
Jim Poppy
Joan MacDaniels
Joseph Rolfe
Kathy Croce
K.imberley Worrg
Lee Collins
Marie Macy
Mary Joy Macy
Mary Sylvester
Matt Croce
Midori Aogaichi
Nancy Strom
Nelson Ng
Neva Yarkin
Pam McCroskey,
PiltriciaWong
Richard Mamelok, MD
Rob Levitsky
Robert Yamashita
Val Steil
Vic Befera
Wally Whittier
William Macy
Ying Cui
Yoriko Kishimoto
Yuri Yamashita
Melville Ave
Kellogg St
Melville Ave
Emerson St
Emerson St
Bryant Sit (SW corner Bryant and Kellogg)
Bryant Sit (SW corner Bryant and Kellogg)
Emerson St
Emerson St
Emersorr St.
Emersonr St
Emerson St (NUi corner Emerson and Kellogg)
Kellogg 13t
Kellogg lit
Melville Ave
Melville l\ve
Melville l\ve
Emerson St
Melville Ave
Melville Frve
Melville A,ve
Emerson St (S\A/ corner Melville and Emerson)
Churchill St
Melville Ave
Emerson St
Churchill St
Emerson St
Emerson St
Churchill St
Emerson Street
Bryant St (NE corner Bryant and Kellogg)
Kellogg Sit
Bryant St:
Bryant St:
Melville A,ve
Waverley St (SV\/ corner Embarc & Waverley)
Embarcadero St
Bryant St (NE corner Bryant and Kellogg)
2.d
Packet Pg. 125
PNQLnow.orq
Preserve Neighborhood euality of Life s
August 13,2020
Description of Attoched Document:
The ottoched "Summory of Costillejo'$ Conce,rns,,woscostillejo sfudent. Ms. Minty Sidhu went oround the neond got some of us to sii down with her. she fert certoisolved if peoprre sot down together. we ogrered with r,ur, oMinty ond her husbond, Brion Suckow to eiplcrin the neighbors' distrust ond post issues withihe current scfirool odministrotion, ond how thr: p$.t currenly under review crculd hovebeen hondlecl better.
il: :,'rilffi: Mr' suckow wrote up o very thoughtfut summory of rheir undersrondins of
Visit our website: pNeLnow.org
2.d
Packet Pg. 126
summary of castiileja Neighbors' concerns llegarding the proposed Expansion
This summary has been prepared forthe castilleja Boarclof Trustees by Minty sidhu and Elrian ljur:kow(Parents 2012 and Palo Alto residents) based on intenviews of casti neighbors during the summer and fall of2018' our olcjective was not to find solutions;, but to unrJerstand neighbors, perspectives and crlnrmunicatethem in a non-emotional, unbiased manner to assist the Board in deciding how to move forward.
Foundational lssues:
while there are many issues that surfaced in our conrrersations, there are two foundation;rl issues thatunderlie and intersect with many of the more tactical i:;sues:- Fit with Residential Neighborhood; casti i:; located in a neighborhood zoned as Rrl residential, and theneighbors are seeking to maintain the residentialfeel of their neighborhood. Most of theirtactical issuescome back to this key overarching issue,
- Trust in Castilleio's Administrqtionr Beyon,c the issue of exceeding the allowed enrollment from theexlsting CUP (and having to be forced to gradually go birck down to that revel only recenily), neighbors haveexpressed significant concerns with :o How (lasti's administrators have portrayed neisJhbors'issues publicly (e.g,, insisting that neighborshad asked for an underground garage when thi: vast majorrty are opposed)' why casti's administrators failed to share nei5;hbors'previousty documented feedback nrorebroadly, including with Casti,s Boardo what casti's ultimate expansion goa|; are beyond the current request to increase to 540 students,given the size of the planned underground garage
Process lssuesj.
Neighbors expressed greatfrustration with clasti's prorress, though to be fair, they conceded that casti,sAdministration was rikery equaily frustrated, Areas for improveJent incrude:- Collaborative Design: one best practice of innovativer silicon Valley companies is to bring their customersinto a collaborative design process, Viewing the neighhor!; as one important ,,cLlstomer,,of the Castiexpanslon/ and giving them a seat at the desi5;n table i:; likely to yield a compromise that improves theoutcome for both Casti and the neighbors, Nr:ighbors rlon'tfeerthey have been included in the process,-lmprovedCornmunicotion; Neighborsindicatedafeelingthatthetwiceperyearmeetingsmandatedby
the existing cUP are "checkthe box" sessions, in which casti's administrators are not sincerery interested inengaging in detailed dialogue' And beyond these required sessions, there is limited opp'rtunityf.reffective commu n ication,
- Rigorous Morritoring" The city of Palo Alto l'rankly felil down in its responsibility to monitor casti,sadherence to tlre previous cUP' Neighbors are concerned that without a more robust process in place bythe city, history could repeat itself, even with good intentions from the Casti Administratjon,
Tactical lssues:
Keeping these overarching foundationaland Process issues in mind may help the Board better understandthe reasons behind many of the tacticalconcerns of the neighbors, The keytactical issues arranged indecreasing priority appear to be:
1' undergrouncl Parking Garoge:while Casti lras indica'ted that some neighbors preferred an underrgroundgarage/ it appears that the overwhelming majrrrity of nerighbors do not, some months back, 47 surroundinghouseholds signed a petition opposing the garage, and the casti Adrninistration,s continued insistence that
November 77, 20L8
2.d
Packet Pg. 127
they're adding the underground garage because the nerighbors want it has further eroded trust, r-he mainound garage include:
ra{les are not permitted in R1 residentialzones, andrder to add this garage will detract from the residential
centration of alltraffic having to enter frorn tlryantlnd exit on Emerson,
g vehicles will have to be released above gJround, and
- Lorgescoler 'The rerative increase in acter with a residential zone,
relative increase in enrollment, There
and 5L on-street spaces along the thre
rease from 132 to j_93 represents a 46% incrr:ase inm the current -440 to 540, or 23%, This mur:h larger %
a subsequent phase or expansion bevond the 540, ,;:liJ:"j:[: il:H:ff:l'j,'.:::,:"* Casti is pranning
ise for Casti,s progress in reducing trafl,ic Lhrough theirenrollment and staff will inevitably lead to increasedtanford miss the point, Neighbors are most
not just on Embareadero, Increased enrollment is,yant, Emerson, Kellogg, and Melville. And, clue to
ny parents are likely to drop off their chilrjrern alons,Cerground garage,
3' scole of the'Proposed Buitding; An analogythat may not be perfectly apt butthat captures the essenceof the concern is that the new buildings will be like thol;e ,,McMansions,,single family homes that havebeencriticizedfortheirlargescaleandlack.ffitwiththecharacteroftheneighborhoocl.
Fravingonemonolithic building that stretches almost the entire length of the Kellogg street block, and that has asmaller setback than the existing buildings, is felt to be out of character in this residential nelghborhood.
4' Construction duratiou This is a huge projerct, and initialprojections of 5 years with massrve ex(;avationsare quite daunting from the perspective of noise, dust, and generar disruption. More recently neighborshave heard of new plans that may shorten thr: duration to 3 years, The neighbors are supportive 'f Castiupdating their campus, but 3 to 5 years of corrstruction is perceived as excessive in a resicJentialn e igh bo rh ood,
5' Events: with roughly 100 events annually, there are many evenings and weekends when neighbors,routines are dis;turbed by the comings and goings of attendees at casti's events, The current level is
ff[]:::,i:iJii'Jli;ji:;" "t character with an RL zone, and there are concerns that rurther expansion
up multiple properties in the adjoining
November 27,2018
)
2.d
Packet Pg. 128
Lnow.oro
hborhood euality of LifeJ
August 13,2020
Description of' Attoched Document:
During lote 20l7'we worked with Polo Alto Mediotion progrom to try to come t. ,,thetoble" with ccrstillejo's decision mokers. we met with twohembers'of pAMp for monynours over o fr=w weeks. They, in turn, were meeting with the schoor.
Visit our website: pNeLnow.org
2.d
Packet Pg. 129
PNe['s Guidiing principles
Neighborhood Fqcililoted Meefing. Morch l, 2O1g
l ' Estqbrlish ond preserve ihe quiet errjoyment, oppeoronce ond livobility of
our R-l zoned residentiol neighborhood.
2' Reoch on open, honest ond irusting portnership between cosiillejo ond its
neighbors thot is bosed on rnutuol occountobility, verifioble commitmenfs,
ond cietoiled conceptuol Pfons ihot ore shored eorly in the plonning
process.
2.d
Packet Pg. 130
PNQL's Priorilized Concerns
Neighborhood focilitoted meeling, Mor l, 20lg
1.
neighborhoodo' A goroge on Emerson street woul<J result in institutionolizing the short block ofEmerson, currently o residentiol stnoet, ond residentiol rentol stock will br: reduced.c. school hos orreody token the 2oo-brock of Merviile, neighbors wont end tochonging the foce of the neighborhood by Costillejo.Too mony sludenlso' Enrollment olreody too high, need to reduce profile by reducing students ond stoffto fit this smoll ocreooeb. school con sprit.or-p* b,etween grodes B ond 9 ond grow, occommo(Joiingmony more deserving girls.
Sofely issueso. Proposed goroge impedes flow of lrclffic; more cors wilt enter neighborhood todrop girls; cors, pedestrions, bikes oJong Bryont Bike Blvd will suffer increoseccongestion.b' Emborcodero & Emerson, E:mborcodero ond Bryont orreody ore dongerouscorners; yet these ore risted os pronned ingress ond egress for gorogeiInoppropriote use of R-l zoned lond;o. the negotive impocts from the combined impoct of costillejo,s project, growingtroffic from stonford. ond mojor infrcrstr.,rcture (troins) nuuor to be oddressed inCostillejo's proposed plon.b' Keeping costillejo the hisioric, bucolic compus by modernizinE; buildings would bebest-use of site ond environmentolsustt:inoble; respectful considerotion ofneighbors needs io be o gool of the school.c' ) igh vorume of drop-off ond pick-up troffic on Ketoggn ool needs to use shuttles. buses, ond interior <1rop-offsAdve weeknight ond weekend events.o' N reloxotiot't dr'rring weeknights ond weekends, relief fromconstont iroffic ond monitorsb' Neighbors ore inieresied in lhe school estoblishing hours of operolion with o sernumber of events thot qre prublished clnd odhered to.An exlended period of disruption to rhe neighborhood coused by the proposedconstruction projecf.o. Demolition wiil couse poilulion, excessive noise, potentiorde_woteringb' 5-5 yecrs of construction presents risks to ihe heolth ond well-being of ihesurrounding residentsc' stoging construciion vehicles will dcrmcrge ond clog our norrow s1reets ondpossibly block drivewoys orrd impecte rnovement.
2.
3.
4.
2.d
Packet Pg. 131
From:Hank Sousa
To:Architectural Review Board
Subject:PNQL documents for you
Date:Tuesday, August 11, 2020 3:51:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Board Members:
I would like to send a packet to Grace, Alex and Osma which has some documents preparedby the neighborhood group trying to limit Castilleja's expansion plans.
I am meeting with Peter and David on Friday afternoon and will give them packets after ourbrief meeting. Would you three others email me your addresses and I will drop the slender
packets in the mail. They are stamped and ready to go. Alternatively I can give your packets toPeter or David to pass on to you. We'd like you to have a couple of days to review them before
the issue comes before you on August 20th.Many thanks,
Hank SousaPNQL steering committee member
2.d
Packet Pg. 132
From:Tom Shannon
To:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Council, City
Cc:akcooper@pacbell.net; carlab@cb-pr.com; mcleod.bruce@gmail.com; Tom Shannon
Subject:Castilleja Alternative Plan - Neighbors may have a solution
Date:Friday, August 7, 2020 2:40:00 PM
Attachments:Castilleja Alternative Plan - Draft 8.04.2020.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
To members of Palo Alto's ARB, PTC and City Council:
Attached for your review and study is a new alternative plan to Castilleja's current proposed plan. This
new plan was developed by myself, a neighbor of the school, in collaboration with other nearby
residents (copied on this email). As you know, the school’s current plans are meeting with considerable
resistance from the broader neighborhood, and its recent FEIR contains multiple “significant and
unavoidable impacts” to the city and environs.
When compared to Castilleja's current plan, we think this plan is orders of magnitude more favorable to
all stakeholders - Castilleja, the neighborhood, City, bicyclists, Palo Alto students commuting to Walter
Hayes, Greene Middle or Palo Alto High School, cars, traffic and all surrounding residents.
Advantages of this alternative plan: it dramatically improves bicycle safety on the Bryant Street bike
corridor, it greatly enhances the future possibility of using Kellogg as a safer bike corridor to Palo Alto
High School, it relieves all car congestion traffic and parking on all the surrounding neighborhood streets,
it eliminates the garage entrance or exit off of public streets and it could actually improve traffic flow on
Embarcadero.
We hope you agree this approach has significant merit, and could deliver a win-win outcome for this
thorny issue.
We welcome your study, review and comments.
Tom Shannon – 256 Kellogg Ave.
Alan Cooper – 270 Kellogg Ave.
Carla Befera – 1404 Bryant St.
Bruce McLeod – 1404 Bryant St
2.d
Packet Pg. 133
From:Mary Sylvester
To:Architectural Review Board
Subject:Neighbors of Castilleja School Request a Meeting with You
Date:Thursday, July 30, 2020 5:11:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Good Evening, Commissioners.
Now that the Castilleja FEIR has been published and is available for general review, I
am writing to request a meeting with each of you to discuss the neighborhood's
perspective on the document. In attendance at the meeting, will be 6-8 neighbors
who are actively involved and knowledgeable about the school's project.
Given that the ARB meeting to publicly review and discuss the FEIR is occurring on
August 20th, neighbors believe it is critical for us to meet with you as soon as
possible. We are happy to accommodate your schedules and can meet with each of
you individually or in pods of two commissioners at a time. Time is of the essence aswe have the PTC meeting to review the FEIR the following week on August 26th.
Please let me know your availability for a meeting over the next week.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Appreciatively,Mary Sylvester
(650) 3787-2129
On 05/29/2020 1:45 PM Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>wrote:
Thank you for your comments to the Architectural Review Board. Your e-mail will be
forwarded to all Board Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be
included in the next available packet.
If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply
with an explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification.
We appreciate hearing from you.
2.d
Packet Pg. 134