HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-04 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
Special Meeting Agenda: November 4, 2020
Virtual Meeting
6:00 PM
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 972 0162 4998 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 and through Channel 26 of the 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.
Call to Order / Roll Call
Oral Communications
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
City Official Reports
1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
Action Items
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal.
All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: Castilleja School Project, 1310 Bryant Street
[16PLN-00238]: Request by Castilleja School Foundation for Planning and
_______________________
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.
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 and 30, 2020;
Draft EIR Published July 15, 2019. For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief
Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
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: 972 0162 4998 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 # 11753)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 11/4/2020
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: November 4, 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, Riggs
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
11/4/2020 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Special
11/11/2020 6:00 PM Cancelled Cancelled Veteran’s Day
11/18/2020 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Special Riggs
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
November 18, 2020
• Study Session on Parking Program Enhancements
• Recommendation to Extend Ban for One-Year on Office Uses Above
the Ground Floor From Participating in the City’s Downtown Parking
In-Lieu Program
Upcoming items:
Topics
• Ordinance Amending 18.42.110 (Wireless Communication Facilities)
1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 11747)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/4/2020
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Castilleja Recommendation CUP & GFA Variance
Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: Castilleja School Project,
1310 Bryant 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 and 30,
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. Review the Draft Approval Findings for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and gross floor
area (GFA) replacement Variance (Attachment A);
2. Review Draft CUP Conditions of Approval (Attachment B) for Project Alternative #4;
3. Receive public testimony on the draft Findings and Conditions, and on any other
documents, and
2
Packet Pg. 8
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
4. Provide recommendations on the CUP and Variance applications.
Note: CUP and Variance Findings and Conditions will be ultimately be incorporated into a
Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) along with Architectural Review Findings and Conditions. The
RLUA and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP, Attachment C) will be
forwarded to City Council. Council will review these documents, the EIR and all application
recommendations from the Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board and PTC.
Report Summary
This report supports the PTC’s third public meeting to discuss the Castilleja School project
following publication of the final environmental impact report (EIR) in late July. On September
9, 2020, the PTC made a recommendation to the City Council to affirm the adequacy of the final
EIR to the City Council (4-1 Summa against) and directed staff to return with draft approval
findings and conditions. Two commissioners did not attend the September 9th meeting, but had
the opportunity to provide comments on the Final EIR’s adequacy for certification.
The draft findings and conditions are intended to serve as a starting place for the Commission’s
continued deliberation. When preparing the attached conditions, staff reviewed Castilleja’s
existing entitlements and conditions imposed on other private schools in the Bay Area.
Additionally, staff reviewed recent City CUP approvals and correspondence from the applicant
and residential neighbors most impacted by current school operations.
The attached draft findings and conditions generally reflect the applicant’s request or modify
the request to address neighborhood concerns or minimize anticipated impacts. The PTC is
encouraged to review the findings and conditions and direct changes as needed. Many
standard conditions and special conditions for the architectural review application are not
included; these would be incorporated into a final record of land use action. For instance,
conditions typically imposed to address public works, utility conditions and conditions related
to public art and tree replacement and preservation. Staff will be prepared to talk generally
with the PTC about the conditions anticipated to be reviewed by the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) in November.
Background
The following is a summary of the requested entitlements, recent background discussion and
reviews by City boards and PTC.
Variance Request
The applicant requests a Variance to replace non-complying gross floor area (GFA) which
exceeds the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and has provided several letters1 on this topic. There has
1 Applicant’s recent letter regarding the requested Variance
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78401 and Applicant’s Variance request letter
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64423
2
Packet Pg. 9
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
also been significant public comment2 on this issue. Staff believe findings can be made to
support the applicant’s request, and presents draft findings in Attachment A. However, the PTC
and City Council retain broad discretion over whether the findings can be made and conditions
that may be required to make the findings. The applicant’s submittals for ARB hearings in
October and November reduced the requested amount of requested replacement GFA by 2,228
square feet (sf). This would reduce the campus Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from the existing 0.44:1
to 0.42:1.
The GFA replacement area will be embodied in the proposed new buildings. Review of the new
building designs falls within the ARB’s purview to recommend an action to the City Council on
the Architectural Review (AR) application. Conditions of approval related to the physical
manifestation of floor area approved by Variance will be processed with the AR application.
CUP Request
The applicant’s CUP amendment request is to increase the enrollment cap from 415 students to
540 students; this is tied to redevelopment of the campus in phases, with no more than 27
students added annually. The CUP also includes placement of a temporary campus of two-story
modular classrooms on Spieker Field, to enable the school to operate during construction of the
new Academic Building. Castilleja’s enrollment, currently 426 students, has been reduced
incrementally toward 415 students, in accordance with a 2013 City code enforcement case
letter as modified in 2017.3
CUP conditions can regulate the size and rate of enrollment increases and special events
(number, frequency, monitoring, enforcement); the TDM program (mandatory
measures, monitoring, reporting, and enforcement); temporary on-site campus
(relationship to enrollment increases, timely removal); and other operational
considerations.
Architectural Review
On October 1, 2020, the ARB reviewed the project. The ARB staff report4 included a table
capturing the ARB’s earlier comments and Applicant’s responses. In addition to responding to
the ARB’s August 20th design-related comments, the October 1st report provided information on
other topics. The topics included traffic and TDM enforcement, use of the temporary campus,
special events and circulation focused on the potential for conflicts between bicyclists and car
drivers, and floor area clarification. The October 1st staff presentation,5 video,6 and excerpt
2 Public comments on the project provided to staff in 2020 are viewable on this webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/public_comments.asp
3 City’s 2013 attendance reduction and TDM letter as part of enforcement cast is viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53932 and the 2017 enrollment reduction letters are
viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61437
4 ARB October 1st staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78570
5 ARB October 1st presentation https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78667
6 ARB October 1st video https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-1012020/
2
Packet Pg. 10
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 4
minutes7 are available online. The ARB continued the item to a date uncertain and directed the
applicant to further develop specific architectural and landscape items for a third ARB hearing.
On October 22nd, the Applicant submitted responses to the ARB feedback with revised
drawings in a complete package. The conformed plans are available for viewing City’s
homepage for the Castilleja project; two links are provided due to the size of the plan set:
• https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78908
• https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78909
The August 20th ARB staff report,8 excerpt meeting minutes,9 video,10 and presentation11 are
viewable online. Staff provided the excerpt ARB minutes from August 20th in the September 9th
PTC staff report12; the minutes captured the ARB’s support of the Reduced Garage/Disbursed
Circulations Alternative over the original project.
PTC Reviews, Public Comments and Applicant Submittals
On August 26th, the PTC received the initial staff report and presentations from staff and the
applicant; however, given time constraints, the PTC was only able to take public testimony and
ask one round of questions. Rather than taking staff’s answers that evening, the PTC requested
staff return with answers on September 9th to enable the PTC to continue its discussion on that
date. Links to the August 26th PTC meeting report, excerpt minutes and presentations were
provided in the PTC September 9th report. The September 9th PTC presentation,13 video,14 and
excerpt PTC meeting minutes15 are available online.
On September 9th, the PTC discussed staff’s answers to the initial round of PTC member
questions. Prior to the meeting, the PTC had received:
• On September 4th responses to Commissioners’ questions prepared by the
neighborhood group, PNQL,
• On September 8th and 9th, responses to Commissioners’ questions prepared by the
applicant.
The PTC voted 4-1-2 (Summa opposed, Roohparvar and Riggs absent) on the adequacy of the
Final EIR for transmittal and recommendation to the City Council. The PTC then voted (same
attribution 4-1-2) to continue the public hearing to the PTC meeting date of October 14th. The
continuance came with a request for staff to return with draft findings and conditions for
project approval of the applications within the PTC’s purview to help structure its discussion.
7 ARB October 1st excerpt minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78774
8 ARB August 20th staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78021
9 ARB August 20th excerpt meeting minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78325
10 ARB August 20th meeting video https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-8202020/
11 ARB August 20th presentation https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78197
12 PTC September 9th staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78346
13 PTC September 9th presentation https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78373
14 PTC September 9th video https://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-992020/
15 PTC September 9th excerpt minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/default.asp
2
Packet Pg. 11
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 5
The effort to prepare and review wording for the draft findings and conditions required
additional time, and the meeting date was postponed to October 28th.
Public comments received by the PTC members prior to the two PTC hearings are viewable on
the PTC webpages and on the Castilleja Project webpages, here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/public_comments.asp. The
Applicant’s submittals of September 8th and 9th, responsive to PTC questions (and posted the
same days on the ‘Project Documents’ webpage as items 10 through 17) are viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/project_documents_.asp. Also
viewable on the same ‘Project Documents’ webpage link, are Applicant submittals (items #13-
28) submitted in response to the ARB’s August 20th comments.
Regarding issues to address in draft approval conditions, PTC members noted or requested:
• A condition of approval to recover staff time required to enforce and monitor the CUP since
traffic mitigation measures will require staff resources over the years to track and monitor.
• A condition of approval for the removal of the portable campus buildings related to
construction.
• A condition to enforce mitigation measure 7a to address:
o how the School will be evaluated in terms of increases in enrollment and
enforcement of the CUP;
o how the information will be communicated;
o how the school will be held accountable to ensure there will be no increased
impacts, and
o what happens if the School fails to meet the standards.
• Conditions regarding construction, events, and pool noise.
All these topics are addressed in the draft conditions and elaborated upon later in this report.
Historic Resources Board (HRB) September 24, 2020
The HRB reviewed options for the Gunn Building egress stair and wall treatment on September
24th and formed a subcommittee to review final details for the stair railing. The HRB confirmed
the Final EIR’s adequacy on cultural resource matters. The HRB’s September 24th discussion
and feedback on Draft ARB Finding 2b related to historic preservation led to the HRB’s approval
of the wording to forward to the ARB on October 1, 2020. Links to the HRB staff report16, draft
excerpt minutes,17 video,18 and presentation19 are available online.
CEQA Mitigation Measures/ Conditions Addressing Community Concerns
A concerned community has been actively engaged with several elements of the project,
including enrollment and enforcement, traffic and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
16 HRB 9-24-20 staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78489
17 HRB 9-24-20 excerpt minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78708
18 HRB 9-24-20 video https://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-46-9242020/
19 HRB 9-24-20 presentation https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78550
2
Packet Pg. 12
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 6
programs, floor area replacement and floor area ratio, tree preservation, and noise. The EIR
covered these topics in depth and the City’s webpages for the Castilleja School Project provide
more information. EIR mitigation measures are designed to address CEQA impacts. Conditions
for Council consideration can provide additional specificity or clarifications, beyond addressing
CEQA impacts. Conditions for CUP and AR approval can be designed to address community
concerns unrelated to CEQA impacts. Conditions of approval associated with the AR application
will be presented in the next ARB staff report and the AR-related conditions will be folded into a
draft Record of Land Use Action for Council consideration.
Physical Changes on Campus – ARB Purview
The consideration of how the campus will be updated physically is primarily within the purview
of ARB and City Council. However, the CUP is required to expand the campus facilities,
associated with enrollment increases and including the temporary campus. The ARB’s purview
includes review of circulation, parking facilities, buildings, landscaping, lighting and historic
preservation, with a broad scope for approval findings. Staff provided draft AR approval findings
tailored to the Project Alternative in the October 1st ARB staff report. The AR findings are
subject to adjustment at the next ARB hearing.
Underground Parking Facility - Interpretation
Staff has not required the applicant to include the below grade square footage of the
underground parking facility in the Variance request, as explained in prior PTC reports and staff
presentations. In short, although “carports” and “garages” are included in GFA for the R-1 zone,
these terms are defined to mean parking facilities associated with residential uses only. The R-1
regulations for GFA do not directly address the treatment of parking facilities for non-
residential uses; they do however, exempt non-habitable “basement” space from GFA. The
code defines “basement” broadly enough to encompass the proposed underground garage, and
staff believe this reading represents the best fit for a non-residential use in the R-1 zone. The
PTC requested a discussion of any precedent for this interpretation.
The most relevant and recent precedent, Kol Emeth, was approved in 2016. It included 109
parking spaces in a below grade parking facility (and 12 spaces on the surface lot). Kol Emeth’s
below grade facility extended significantly beyond the building footprint and did not count
toward gross floor area. Staff also found an R-1 zoned church approved to extend basement
area beyond the first floor and also to exceed the floor area ratio by CUP approval. It is not
uncommon for non-residential uses in other zones to have a basement parking facility that is
either not located under a finished first floor, or that extends significantly beyond the finished
floor. Examples include Stanford Research Park subterranean parking facilities, Stanford
Medical Center’s subterranean parking facility at 300 Pasteur, and the more recent Marriott
parking facility at 744 San Antonio Road.
Should the PTC disagree with staff’s interpretation of this issue, it could direct the applicant to
revise its Variance application to include the underground parking floor area or alternatively
recommend that the findings for the Variance cannot be made. Recent letters related to the
2
Packet Pg. 13
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 7
floor area calculations and interpretations are available on the City’s Castilleja School Project
webpages:
• Neighborhood group (PNQL) attorney’s letters20 regarding Applicant’s variance request,
• Applicant’s rebuttal21 to PQNL’s letter, and letter22 responsive to Commission request.
Academic Building Changes: Gross Floor Area Reductions
The applicant revised the Academic Building plans in September to respond to ARB’s August
comments. The ARB expressed support for the Bryant side changes and on October 1, 2020
requested additional changes on the Kellogg side. The October 22nd plan set23 is the Alternative
#4 conformed set that reflects a total gross floor area reduction of 2,228 square feet.
Bryant Side
The Bryant side lobby entrance (2,136 sf GFA) is flanked by two deeply recessed, covered
porches, with second-floor deck and ‘green roof’. These porches would provide substantially
shaded, bench seating, contributing to the comfort of students waiting to be picked up. The
porches together comprise 1,377 sf of GFA, since R-1 zone porches recessed more than ten feet
count toward GFA. The habitable basement underneath the lobby and porches, which formerly
counted toward GFA (since it was not under GFA), now does not count toward GFA.
Habitable basement areas underneath GFA that is calculated at the first-floor level do not count
against GFA in the R-1 zone. The Academic Building components were previously only
connected below grade by habitable basement area. Because that basement area was not
beneath GFA, it counted toward GFA. Habitable basement area in the Academic Building that is
covered by a first floor does not count toward GFA. This dichotomy in how GFA is counted
caused no small amount community confusion. The applicant’s ‘area summary’24 showed the
ARB the removal of 586 sf at the second-floor level along the Kellogg side of the Academic
Building. The October 22 set shows the additional second floor removal area.
Kellogg Side
The October 22nd plans show an additional break in the massing and roofline seen from Kellogg
Avenue. The proposed Academic Building now has two breaks in the massing, as well as eave
and batten patterns to provide more variety and visual interest. This second break resulted in a
further reduction in second floor gross floor area for a total of 2228 square feet. The original
had 84,124 SF of gross floor area replacement; the April Alternative #4 submittal had 84,170 SF
of gross floor area. The Conformed Set dated October 22nd reflects 81,942 SF gross floor area
replacement.
Temporary Campus
20 Moncharsh recent letters re Variance URL
21 Romanowsky rebuttal letter URL
22Romanowsky letter response to PTC URL
23 Conformed, revised plans October 22nd https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/default.asp
24 October 1 ‘area summary’ of Bryant side https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78509
2
Packet Pg. 14
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 8
Staff previously shared with the PTC the applicant’s temporary campus layout25 tailored to the
Alternative #4 proposal – the modular buildings would all be accommodated on Spieker Field.
Before/after images of the two-story modulars26 were provided as well as the campus layout
image and presented to the PTC and ARB. Conditions of approval require removal of the
modular buildings, following construction of the Academic Building. As drafted in the
conditions, the school is also precluded from expanding enrollment toward full enrollment until
the modular buildings are removed.
Tree Protection and Landscape Design Modifications
The Applicant’s recent submittals, displayed on the Project Documents webpage, were
provided in response to ARB questions and the City’s Urban Forester’s requirements.
Finalization of the Urban Forestry Conditions of Approval is underway and will be provided in
the next ARB staff report. The recent submittals include:
• an updated tree protection plan,
• updated tree lists for the original Project and Project Alternative,
• tree disposition plan,
• memorandum regarding the Redwoods next to the garage along with a ‘soil nail section’
showing the technique for supporting these Redwoods, and
• letter discussing the landscape design for the proposed temporary campus.
The EIR Mitigation Measure 4b addresses trees; as previously noted, implementation of the
mitigation measures will reduce impacts to ‘less than significant’. The MMRP provides notes on
timing and is designed to facilitate tracking of compliance with this measure. Architectural
Review draft conditions include standard measures such as protective fencing at the limits of
the tree protection zones and mulching. Note that the Project Alternative recent submittals
show reduced tree removals and relocations and include additional protection
recommendations for 11 trees: (a) Redwoods #115-120 in place (with a 12-foot excavation
setback and other measures), (b) Coast Live Oaks #89, #113 and #126 (with ten-foot excavation
setbacks and other measures), and (c) Deodor Cedars #123 and #124 (with excavation setbacks
of nine feet).
Analysis27
In response to the PTC’s direction, staff has prepared CUP and Variance findings and draft
conditions of approval.
25 Temporary campus layout https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78343
26 Images of two story modular https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78344
27 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public
hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public
testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an
alternative action from the recommended action.
2
Packet Pg. 15
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 9
The PTC offered some initial comments that helped refine the initial direction of the draft
conditions. Staff included conditions from the school’s previous entitlements and suggested
several others to further minimize potential impacts.
The draft conditions represent a starting place for the Commission’s ongoing deliberation. The
public has not had an opportunity to review the conditions. Staff recommends the PTC reopen
the public hearing to receive public input, including from the applicant, who similarly has not
previously seen the draft conditions prior to the printing of this report.
Based on the public testimony, staff recommends the PTC consider the draft findings and
conditions and provide direction to staff as appropriate. It is important to note that the draft
conditions do not represent all the conditions that would ultimately be imposed on the project.
Notably, conditions related to architectural review are not included. Some of the community’s
interests may be addressed in the architectural review board conditions and staff can respond
as appropriate when questions may arise. Moreover, staff anticipates refinements to the draft
conditions, based on the Commission’s feedback. Staff will prepare a final set of conditions that
includes all the requested entitlements in one Record of Land Use Action for the City Council.
Highlighted below are several topic areas that the draft conditions of approval address. Staff
requests specific PTC direction on some key issues below and welcomes feedback on the
totality of the findings and conditions. The draft conditions are intended to serve as a
framework to help facilitate the Commission’s deliberation.
Lastly, when reviewing the conditions of approval, it is important to also consider the
accompanying mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). The conditions and the
MMRP work in tandem and carry the same weight and enforcement. To minimize the chance
for error and reduce redundancy, the conditions in some instances refer to the MMRP for more
prescriptive criteria.
Enrollment
Castilleja has requested a final enrollment of 540 students, with phased enrollment increases
that are tied to completion of construction milestones. Specifically, the school has proposed
that enrollment be maintained at existing levels (426-430 students) upon approval of the CUP
amendment; increasing at a rate of 25-27 students per year upon completion of the
underground garage, up to a maximum of 490 students; and increasing at a range of 25-27
students per year upon completion of the academic building, up to the 540-student cap.
The draft conditions reflect the applicant’s request and impose other restrictions that require
ongoing compliance with the conditions of approval and mitigation measures. The conditions
also include a process that would suspend enrollment increases if documented violations are
not cured with a certain period of time.
The PTC has wide discretion over its recommendation concerning enrollment. Some community
members would prefer Castilleja reduce enrollment to its previously approved 415 students or
2
Packet Pg. 16
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 10
at least continue reducing student enrollment until 415 is reached in accordance with an
agreement with the City and applicant. Some argue that enrollment should not be allowed to
increase until the project has been completed.
Increasing enrollment results in more trips to the site and need for more parking. At present,
with its current student enrollment of 426 students, Castilleja is meeting its AM Peak TDM
program target. The applicant’s request would not increase enrollment until the subterranean
garage is completed addressing the need for increased parking demand. Moreover, the new
TDM program imposes significantly greater criteria to help reduce net new vehicle trips
associated with the school’s expansion.
The PTC is encouraged to consider applicant and public comment regarding enrollment and
direct changes as appropriate. The PTC may provide guidance on what the enrollment ceiling
should be, when can it be achieved, whether phased increases should be allowed, and when
would this begin.
Condition numbers 4, 5, 16 and 29 relate to enrollment, including a requirement for the
school’s independent auditor to attest to the number of enrolled students and to share that
information publicly.
Special Events
Castilleja School proposes 90 special events28 annually, associated with the CUP request. Five of
these are major events include enrolled students and their parents/guardians and some may
exceed 500 guests. Approximately 50 other events range in size from 100 to 500 guests and the
balance are less the 100, but more than 50. Events less than 50 guests are not regulated.
Area residents have expressed concern regarding the size and frequency of events and the
school has taken some measures to minimize impacts, but it remains an area of contention. The
City and Castilleja also disagree as to how many events the current CUP allow. Castilleja asserts
the current CUP allows an unlimited number of events with more than 100 attendees, not
including defined major events. City staff’s perspective is that the Council intended to limit the
size and number of events at the school. A letter from the City to the applicant regarding this
issue is attached to this report. The subject CUP is expected to clearly establish regulations for
events that allow the school to achieve its academic interests while minimizing impacts to area
residents.
The following is a summary of the proposed size and number of events:
• Five ‘Major’ events that have taken place annually for many years: Back to School Night,
Gator Gathering, Founder’s Day, Opening Day, Graduation. Three of these events are
evening events (5 pm to 10 pm) of which one is on a Saturday; the remaining two take
28 Special Events (Tab D of CUP application materials)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53960
2
Packet Pg. 17
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 11
place on a weekday, 8 am to 5 pm. Major events are “defined as events that bring
almost all students and parents to the Castilleja campus”.
• 35 events have up to 100 guests, 11 of which are on Saturdays and two on Saturday
nights (dance/social/alumni reception), 15 of which are weekday evenings; the
remainder are daytime events. These range from admissions events, parent meetings
and receptions, dances and plays, dance rehearsal, student movie night, alumni and art
gallery and athletics receptions.
• 31 events have up to 200 guests, 15 of which are weekday evenings, 4 on Saturdays and
1 on a Saturday night. These range from the Junior-Senior banquet, faculty staff party,
student/parent forum, parent meetings, festival of learning, alumni reception, 8th grade
promotion, summer camp opening days, upper school play, 8th grade Arts Showcase,
global celebration, community and information meetings, dances and socials, winter
concert, vision and voice performance, admissions testing, and admissions information
session.
• 11 events have up to 300 guests, 6 of which are weekday evenings, remainder are
weekdays. These include swim meet, grandparents and special friends day, open
houses, spring music concert, Middle School Expo, sports celebration, dances and
socials, and new parent reception.
• Six events have up to 400 guests, two of which are weekday evenings (art show/dance),
one Saturday night (art show performance), and the remainder are on weekdays. These
include family day, C-STEam, class day, dances and socials, and arts show performances.
For many years now Castilleja has relied upon a certain number of events on campus. Prior to
filing the CUP application, the school held more than 100+ events a year. This has been reduced
over the years, but a drastic change to the number and frequency would likely be disruptive to
school’s interests. On the other hand, the requested 90 events over roughly 185 school year
days is considerable, and this does not include a small number of academic competitions.
Some area residents would like to see a significant reduction in events, as low as ten special
events per academic year. The proposed garage and improvements to site circulation will help
mitigate some of the impacts associated with the events, but it does not reduce the number of
trips being generated to the neighborhood.
The environmental impact report considered the impact of events to the neighborhood and
includes a mitigation measure that requires a parking plan depending on when the event occurs
and its size. These provisions are included in Mitigation Measure 4a.
Through conversations with the applicant, staff was able to determine that a 20%+ reduction,
or 70 special events each academic year, could be achieved. While acknowledging this
reduction, school representatives note that 74 events per academic year is more in line with
their minimum programing needs and caution that further reductions will begin to impact the
school’s academic and social interests.
2
Packet Pg. 18
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 12
Condition number 6 relates to special events. The draft conditions impose time of day
restrictions with half of the events ending prior to 6pm and many more ending by 8pm. The
major events, student performances and school dances are the only events that may extend to
10pm with the proposed condition. Fewer events would take place on Saturdays than in the
past and no events will occur on Sunday. As conditioned, half of the events (35) will have fewer
than 100 guests. Athletic competitions (4) are also now included in the event total.
Moreover, all special events will be subject to the school’s updated transportation demand
management plan, including provisions for shuttle service, to further mitigate potential
impacts.
As drafted, the condition restricts the number of events to 70. Given the applicant’s concern
about 70 events and other time of day restrictions recommended by staff, the PTC may
consider whether to allow 74 special events per academic year, or some other allowance.
Operational-Related Conditions
Included in the draft conditions are several restrictions that pertain to the overall operation of a
school in a residential neighborhood. Some of these address noise, lighting and hours of
operation, summer school activity and use of the fields. Some conditions are carry-overs from
prior approvals.
Community Engagement
There are several conditions that set up the expectation for how the school will engage its
neighbors and respond to complaints. There are requirements for posting monitoring reports
and other information, establishing a dedicated contact phone number and continuing a prior
condition for regular community meetings.
Monitoring and Enforcement
Ongoing monitoring, reporting and enforcement have been a consistent refrain from the
community. Many community members remain frustrated that the school has exceeded its
permitted enrollment and see lax City enforcement as problematic and are skeptical of the
school’s self-reporting.
There are several conditions that address these concerns. Draft conditions of approval #31 and
#33 would recover staff time required to enforce and monitor the CUP. This covers the review
of the School’s performance related to traffic mitigation measure 7a, and events mitigation
measure 4a. This oversight will include Castilleja communications to the neighborhood
regarding events, ensuring that enrollment increases do not exceed stated annual increments
or overall maximum, monitoring of traffic standards, and enforcement of consequences if the
School fails to comply. Importantly, failure to meet ADT and AM peak performance standards
require more efficient or additional trip reduction measures. Student enrollment reductions
begin when there are three consecutive reporting periods where the target has been missed.
student enrollment.
2
Packet Pg. 19
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 13
Temporary Campus
The PTC requested staff provide a condition of approval for the removal of the portable campus
buildings related to construction. Draft Condition #11 addresses removal of the temporary
campus. The School would not be able to increase enrollment until the temporary campus is
removed. The PTC can suggest wording changes or additional conditions related to the
dismantling and uses of the temporary campus, since it is one of the requested components of
the CUP application.
TDM Program
Building off the current TDM program and the required mitigation measures in the
environmental impact report (EIR), the new TDM program establishes performance metrics that
result in fewer trips per student per day and fewer trips per student in the AM peak hour. Both
the average daily trip (ADT) targets and the average AM peak hour targets will be calculated
from typical, non-special event, school days.
To monitor the effectiveness of the TDM program, the school will be required to install
permanent vehicle counter devices at the entrance and exit driveways. The counters will
provide daily trip totals and peak period trip monitoring. In addition, for one week during each
of the (initially) three reporting periods, the City will monitor traffic on the streets adjacent to
the school that have driveways (Bryant, Kellogg, Emerson).
The new TDM Program uses EIR data to set an initial ADT target of 1198 trips estimated for the
current number of 426 students. According to the EIR Mitigation Measure 7a, at maximum
enrollment, the school may not exceed 1,296 average daily trips. The TDM program prorates
the trip target as the number of students approaches full enrollment. The full enrollment 1,296
daily trip target reflects a trip rate of 2.4 trips per student which is lower than the existing EIR-
reported rate of 2.74 trips per student. To achieve this performance metric, the applicant will
need to achieve better performance from its existing TDM measures or employ additional trip
reduction measures as it increases enrollment over time.
A more aggressive performance metric would place the starting ADT at 1,137, which is the
prorated target for 415 students and reflects the school’s previously allowed enrollment cap. As
noted, the school currently has 426 students. The lower ADT has some appeal because it
reflects possible baseline conditions at the previously allowed enrollment limit. It also requires
more aggressive trip reduction strategies to mitigate the additional trips generated by
exceeding the cap. While staff supports an initial ADT of 1,198 there is insufficient empirical
data to conclude that the lower ADT target is achievable and, therefore, was not
recommended.
Alternatively, the PTC could also consider a less aggressive performance metric for the initial
reporting years and apply a static ADT threshold of 1,296. This would provide an overall ceiling
2
Packet Pg. 20
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 14
to measure against year over year as enrollment increases but would not likely require
significantly greater trip reduction strategies until the school reached maximum enrollment.
In addition to ADT, the EIR identifies a maximum AM peak hour trip target of 440 trips. Using
the school’s TDM monitoring data for 2017 through 2019, staff calculated an initial average AM
peak hour target of 383 trips. As the number of students increases on campus, the AM peak
hour target will rise proportionally to 440 trips. The initial 383 AM peak trip target reflects the
current .9 AM peak hour trip rate per student, while the 440 AM peak hour target reflects a
lower trip rate of .81 AM peak hour trips per student.
As with ADT, AM peak performance metrics will be assessed with the driveway counters on
private property. While a condition of approval has been proposed requiring students, faculty
and staff to use campus pickup/drop off locations and parking lots, some individuals will also
park on street immediately adjacent to school and some may do neither. In this regard, vehicle
counters on private property cannot capture 100% of the trips arriving to the school. However,
it is anticipated that the combination of the TDM plan with its performance metrics, the draft
conditions and EIR mitigation measures, will serve to minimize the impacts associated with
increased student enrollment.
School compliance with the TDM program will occur via City review of TDM monitoring reports.
The monitoring reports will use multiple metrics to understand transportation trends at the
school. For both the ADT and AM peak hour metrics, two methods for calculating each metric
will be required. One method will reflect a sample weekly average metric (based on the three
highest typical days in one week) and the other method will average all the typical weekdays in
the four (4) or six (6) month reporting period. If the data shows the trips exceeds either metric,
a violation of the trip targets would be deemed to have occurred.
In this instance, each reporting period may reveal up to four potential violations when assessing
compliance with ADT and AM Peak performance metrics. While this recommended approach is
consistent with traffic engineering practices, it also has the potential to dilute non-excluded
data sets. Days with a high ADT may not trigger a violation if averaged over a long reporting
period with several other data sets. Moreover, some in the community may consider the
financial penalty established in the fee schedule as an insufficient deterrent to remedy
violations.29
An alternative approach the PTC may want to consider is to average ADT and AM peak numbers
over a shorter period, such as every two weeks or one month. The data collection would occur
at the same interval, two or three times a year, but this approach may result in greater
accountability for high ADT or AM peak counts, if they occur, that might otherwise have been
averaged out in a larger data set.
29 The conditions of approval provide other mechanisms, in addition to fees, that are anticipated to serve as a
sufficient deterrent for violating the conditional use permit, including suspension of enrollment and modification
of the conditional use permit, among other options.
2
Packet Pg. 21
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 15
The construction phase of the project presents some challenges to accurately monitor school
related trips associated with its academic functions. Staff recommends that during the
construction phase (three years) of the project that the City stay enforcement of the ADT and
AM peak trip performance metrics but would continue to collect data and have this information
included in the monitoring reports. Castilleja School, with 415 students was previously
(currently) restricted to an AM peak count of 511 trips. Over time, through implementation of
an aggressive TDM program, they have reduced AM peak trips to below 400 trips even with the
unauthorized increase in student enrollment. The composition of the proposed TDM plan as
required in the draft conditions of approval is among the most comprehensive programs the
City has previously considered. It includes a rigorous reporting schedule and requirements,
meaningful penalties for non-compliance, and conditions that require funding to support
ongoing enforcement and compliance reviews. Data collection and monitoring reports will also
be posted online and available to the public. Based on the foregoing, it is not anticipated there
would be significant benefit to enforcing these two criteria during construction. However, if the
PTC concludes that construction trips should be included, the EIR anticipates a range up to 166
daily trips associated with construction. At a minimum these additional trips should be added to
the ADT threshold and direction given to staff to determine an appropriate AM peak increase.
Another consideration is to stay enforcement for only three years, which is the applicant’s
reported construction phasing schedule and what was evaluated in the EIR. After three years
from issuance of a building permit, the school would resume being subject to the ADT and AM
peak trip thresholds.
Construction
There are many construction-related mitigation measures (MM) easily viewable in the MMRP:
• MM 8b and 9a address construction noise and emissions;
• MM 12a requires compliance with and implementation of the geotechnical
recommendations;
• MM HAZ-1 addresses demolition of hazardous materials,
• MM BIO-1 and 2 address construction with respect to bird nesting and bat roosts;
• MM 4b addresses tree protection related to demolition and construction;
• MM6a and MM6b address historic resource protection during construction and crew
training on cultural resources at each construction phase;
The MMRP suggests timing and performance evaluation criteria for these measures. The draft
conditions related to the AR application include requirements for and processing of a
construction logistics plan, demolition, many Public Works Engineering conditions and
conditions regarding tree protection during construction.
Pool Noise
Mitigation measures 8a and 8b address noise, and the MMRP includes notes on timing and
compliance. Condition of approval #12 also addresses noise, including related to emergencies
2
Packet Pg. 22
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 16
and clarifying a requirement for the School to obtain a noise exception permit for amplified
sound equipment use.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper
and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least
ten days in advance. Notice of the PTC public hearing was published in the Daily Post on
October 16, 2020 which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Notice cards were sent on
October 13, 2020 which is 15 days in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments
Public comments to the ARB, PTC and HRB on this project are captured on this webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/public_comments.asp
Environmental Review
As noted, the PTC recommended the Final EIR on September 9, 2020. The Final EIR contained
updated mitigation measures that addressed the Project Alternative #4. In the process of
preparing the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment C) along with
ensuring conditions of approval relate to the TDM program, staff requested the City’s CEQA
consultant fine tune the wording of the Mitigation Measure 7a for clarity.
Alternative Actions
In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission may:
1. Approve the GFA Replacement Variance with modified findings or conditions;
2. Approve the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with modified findings or conditions;
3. Continue the project review to a date certain to enable continued discussion; or
4. Recommend denial of the GFA Replacement Variance or CUP based on revised findings.
Report Author & Contact Information PTC30 Liaison & Contact Information
Amy French, Chief Planning Official Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director
(650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2441
Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Castilleja School Findings for CUP and Variance (DOCX)
• Attachment B: CUP Conditions for Project Alternative #4 (DOCX)
• Attachment C: PTC 9.9.2020 Excerpt minutes (DOC)
• Attachment D: Casti MMRP (002) (PDF)
• Attachment E: Special Events (PDF)
30 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
2
Packet Pg. 23
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 17
• Attachment F: Casti MM7a 2020-10-06 (DOCX)
• Attachment G: Castilleja Events Letter 2.28.18 (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 24
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT CUP AND VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
TO BE INCLUDED IN COUNCIL RECORD OF LAND USE ACTION
Castilleja School Project – Project Alternative #4
16PLN-00238 (CUP and Variance for Replaced Floor Area)
CUP for phased annual enrollment increases to 540 students with Enhanced TDM plan and
Associated phased campus redevelopment, Project Alternative #4, including:
• Minor alternations to the Gunn Building Category 3 Historic Resource built 1926
• Retention of two Emerson residential structures on adjacent Castilleja parcels
• Construction of below grade parking facility (no setback encroachments)
• Retention of two surface lots each providing 13 vehicle spaces
• Retention and use of Kellogg Avenue and Bryant Avenue Driveways for student drop offs
• Modifications to site include pool demolition and relocation
• Demolition of five existing structures and replacement with new classroom/library (requiring
a variance because the existing gross floor area does not comply with the FAR)
CUP FINDINGS
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) findings from PAMC Section 18.76.010 are tailored to the
Castilleja School Project. CUP Approval is subject to Conditions of Approval in this Draft
Record of Land Use Action:
1. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare or convenience:
A. Castilleja is a private school, in existence in its current location since 1910, prior to the City’s
requirement for CUP approvals for private schools in R-1 zones. Campus modifications and
operations have been subject to CUPs issued since the 1960s, as follows:
• 1960 CUP and Variance for 41’ tall, three-story dormitory exceeding R1 height limit;
classrooms, administrative offices, auditorium, library, dorm kitchen, dining room, social
room, gymnasium, pool, tennis courts, caretaker quarters, shop, and garage.
• 1970’s CUPs traffic condition, chapel addition requiring 52 parking spaces, designated
student pick-up and delivery areas, and compliance with prior CUP
• 1990’s CUPs sixth grade class added back, Melville Avenue abandonment, use of the
abandoned area, creation of 28-space parking lot, multi-use field; TDM required; conversion
of a dormitory into a library, classrooms and offices for a maximum of 385 students (154
middle school and 231 high school by the year 2000), requiring an amendment to exceed 385
students
• 2000’s CUPs increased the allowable enrollment to 415 students, implemented TDM
program, added basement below the physical arts building (ARB)
B. Over eight years of fall and spring TDM program monitoring, Castilleja has demonstrated the
school is capable of reducing peak hour trips and maintaining these reductions. Since the
monitoring began in 2012, Castilleja has achieved a reduction of 28% of the trips in the
morning peak hour.
C. In 2013 and 2017, the City began enforcement actions for violations of the 2000 CUP related
to enrollment and events, respectively. Castilleja School has worked cooperatively with the
City to gradually reduce enrollment and lessen the impact of events on the surrounding
neighborhood.
2.a
Packet Pg. 25
D. Project Alternative #4:
a. Does not change the campus parcel size,
b. Does not increase the degree of nonconformity with respect to maximum lot size within the
R-1(10,000) zone;
c. Proposes a replacement academic building to meet the R-1 Zone height limit of 30 feet,
whereas the existing 34’8” tall building to be demolished in this location does not meet the R-
1 Zone height limit;
d. Expands usable (habitable) basement area within the Academic Building, and replaces and
slightly reduces existing above ground Gross Floor Area (GFA);
e. Demolishes non-historic buildings and proposes site improvements and buildings that would
be more compatible than the existing buildings with the residential character of the area,
given materials and landscaping relevant to the residential context; i.e., materials, colors, and
details would be compatible with the remaining, existing structures on the site such that the
overall campus would have a unified and coherent design.
f. Further improves the visual character of the site and its compatibility with the surrounding
residential neighborhood compared to the existing conditions by:
i. reducing the amount of at-grade parking, both on-street and off-street,
ii. relocating bus loading and unloading to the Circle.
g. Includes pedestrian scale fencing and gates to provide several paths of ingress and egress for
students, staff and visitors, including convenient bicycle parking.
h. Incorporates elements that meet the City’s sustainability goals, such as rooftop photovoltaics,
energy efficiency, and water-use efficiency, in addition to meeting current building and
seismic codes;
i. Improves compliance with the City’s parking requirements, whereas the existing campus’ on-
site automobile parking facilities do not meet the code requirements for on-site parking for
private school facilities. The proposed parking facilities will meet the required number of
spaces: 104 non-tandem spaces - located in two surface lots (at 13 spaces each) and in one
underground parking facility (78 spaces, non-tandem);
j. Improves bicycle parking spaces (an increase from 102 spaces to 140 spaces);
k. Does not increase the number of peak hour trips with implementation of the Enhanced TDM
program and mitigation measures. Traffic to the proposed school will be conducted in an
orderly and safe manner, with consequences for noncompliance (including enrollment
reductions and CUP revocation);
l. toads only 114 net new daily trips (after implementation of Mitigation Measure 7a), which
does not represent a significant, adverse environmental impact.
E. The conditions of approval, mitigation measures and monitoring and reporting program are
designed so that:
• Development and approval of a preservation protection plan is ensured for each phase of
construction so as not to adversely affect nearby eligible cultural resources;
• Tree removals/relocations will be limited as per arborist recommendations in 2016 and 2020
reports, and protection measures to ensure survival of trees to remain in place, replacement
trees, and relocated trees;
• The project will meet sustainability requirements and goals (including EV charging stations
spaces provided and LEED standard green building);
• The enhanced TDM program will be monitored and enforcement measures will ensure less
than significant impacts to traffic, vehicle circulation, queuing due to student drop offs,
school activities and events, and parking requirements met on site with the Project
2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Alternative #4 will address parking spill-over issues, all of which have greatly concerned
neighbors in the vicinity of Castilleja School.
• The noise from construction and pool activity will be mitigated.
• The conditions of approval for the project are intended to address these issues by placing
limitations on school hours, the number, frequency, and type of events, and enforcing
ongoing performance standards and the TDM program.
• Performance standards include the requirement to have a designated point of contact for
all complaints, provision of events and construction information, traffic data and reports on
the School website, and provision of funds to enable the City to retain a 3rd party to assist
the City evaluate, monitor, and enforce compliance with conditions and mitigation
measures.
• Enforcement of the TDM program and events will be assured, including coordination of
the School to troubleshoot issues and handle complaints in a timely manner.
Therefore, with implementation of the EIR mitigation measures as outlined in the MMRP and the
conditions of project approval, the proposed CUP amendment will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare, or convenience.
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, in that:
Private School Use is an existing, Conditionally Permitted use within Palo Alto’s R-1 Zone,
consistent with the underlying R-1 (10,000) zoning designation and Comprehensive Plan
designation of Single Family Residential. The project conforms to relevant Comprehensive Plan
policies cited in the project EIR on Table 4-1 of the final EIR. The EIR Mitigation Measures are
intended to improve upon the existing TDM measures with performance monitoring and
enforcement and impose clear special event restrictions; conditions of approval related to the
CUP provide additional clarity for operations.
2.a
Packet Pg. 27
VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR REPLACEMENT OF GROSS FLOOR AREA
Variance approval of the replacement of above grade gross floor area is based on the findings
indicated under PAMC Section 18.76.030(c), tailored to the Castilleja School Project. Approval
of this Variance is subject to the Conditions of Approval in this Draft Record of Land Use Action.
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 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.
The Castilleja School campus is found to have special circumstances, in that:
• FAR limitations and maximum lot size (19,999 sf) would not support the physical space
requirements of a private school and were not created with conditionally permitted
private school uses in mind;
• The size of the campus (at 268,765 sf) is substantially greater than any other lot in the
R-1(10,000) zone (where most surrounding lots are 8,000 to 12,000 sf) resulting in a
maximum floor area ratio that disproportionately constrains the campus compared to
neighboring properties;
• The extreme disparity in lot sizes is detrimental to Castilleja School; the formula
calculates FAR at .45 for the first 5,000 sf and 0.30 for the remaining sf so as properties
increase in size, the maximum permitted FAR decreases. While this has a reasonable
impact for a 19,999 sf lot, it significantly constrains development potential on a lot the
size of Castilleja School’s. Therefore, strict application of the R1(10,000) development
regulations would deprive Castilleja School of privileges enjoyed by other property
owners in the R1(10,000) zone and deprived the School of its longstanding historic and
permitted use of its property.
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.
Except for the requested Floor Area Ratio standard, the Project Alternative #4 complies with all
other R-1(10,000) development standards including building height, setbacks, site coverage,
open space, and parking requirements.
• Whereas the allowable lot coverage for the campus parcel is 110,374 sf (35% of the
campus) a total of 72,240 sf of coverage (27% of the campus parcel) is proposed.
• Whereas the existing gross floor area on the campus parcel is 116,297 sf (FAR of 0.43:1),
a total of 113,667 sf is proposed on the campus (FAR of 0.42:1) which is the new
Academic Building at 81,942 sf plus the buildings to be retained, at 31,725 sf.
The request is not to increase the gross floor area on campus, but to retain and slightly
decrease the existing of above-grade gross floor area, which is most impactful on neighboring
properties. The School facilities will be modified to provide appropriate programmatic space for
2.a
Packet Pg. 28
learning environments, and for seismic safety. The removal of outdated buildings,
reconstruction of gross floor area and provision of below grade building area does not
constitute a special privilege.
The project would improve the campus open space characteristics, create code-compliant and
sustainable buildings with deep roof overhangs and solar shading screens, renewable energy
solar panels, high efficiency and noise mitigation glazing, natural lighting via skylights for
teaching stations, durable and sustainable siding materials, locally sourced interior finishes,
water efficient plumbing fixtures, graywater irrigation, and extensive landscaping.
3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the
purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.
As noted in the CUP findings above, EIR Table 4-1 provides an exhaustive list of the
Comprehensive Plan policies relevant to the project review and analysis.
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 replacement floor area variance would enable construction of a seismically safe and
building designed to be visually compatible with the neighborhood character, with increased
open space and provision of all required parking spaces provided on site, and sustainability
measures. The variance is associated with a slight reduction in above-grade floor area and
modernization of facilities, improving on existing conditions. The location of the Academic
Building would allow bus drop-off and pick-ups to move internal to the site, and enable loading,
delivery and trash functions to move off City streets and onto the school property below grade,
to reduce neighborhood congestion and noise while enhancing neighborhood safety. Mature
tree preservation and canopy retention and replacement is prioritized, and site landscaping and
fencing is carefully designed for neighborhood compatibility.
2.a
Packet Pg. 29
ATTACHMENT B
DRAFT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TO BE INCLUDED IN RECORD OF LAND USE ACTION
Castilleja School Project
File #16PLN-00238: CUP and Variance for Replaced Gross Floor Area
File #19PLN-00119: Architectural Review
________________________________________________________________________
Note: The following are draft conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit for the
Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Project Alternative (‘Project Alternative’ #4 in the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)). Alternative #4 includes the reduced and reconfigured below
grade parking facility, retains the two residential structures on Emerson Street and the stand of
Redwoods next to Spieker Field, utilizes three drop-off /pick-up locations to disburse traffic around
the campus.
APPROVAL:
1. This conditional use permit incorporates all relevant conditions of approval from prior
conditional use permits (00-CUP-23 and 06-PLN-15) and replaces those prior approvals.
Upon the effective date of this entitlement, Castilleja School (‘School’) will be governed
by this conditional use permit and other related City actions associated with the subject
application.
2. The School shall operate in accordance with Project Alternative #4 documented in the
project environmental impact report (EIR Alternative #4), as detailed in the administrative
record and as modified by these conditions.
3. Any future request by the School to change or modify the CUP conditions of approval shall
require a noticed public hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission and
Council action in accordance with PAMC Section 18.77.060 (e) Hearing and
Recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission.
ENROLLMENT:
4. The School may enroll a maximum of 540 students in accordance with the following
schedule:
a. Student enrollment for the 2020-21 academic year and subsequent years, except
as modified below, shall not exceed the current enrollment of 426 students.
b. Upon completion (issuance of a certificate of occupancy) of the underground
parking facility (Phase I), and starting with the next academic year, enrollment may
begin to increase up to a maximum of 490 students.
c. Upon completion of all project construction (issuance of a final certificate of
occupancy for all new buildings and facilities) and removal of all
portable/temporary modular classrooms, enrollment may begin to increase to a
maximum 540 students.
d. Student enrollment shall not increase by more than 25 students per academic year
based on the lesser of the School’s actual or permitted enrollment as documented
2.b
Packet Pg. 30
by the School’s independent auditor.
5. Prior to March 1st each year, the School shall provide the Director of Planning and
Development Services a letter from an independent auditor attesting to the number of
students enrolled at the School, at the time of the audit, for that academic year.
EVENTS:
6. The School may schedule up to a maximum of 70 special events each academic year. A
special event is defined as one that includes more than 50 attendees as defined in
Mitigation Measure 4a included in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP).
A special event includes, but is not limited to student performances, showcase or social
events; parent group meetings; admission, orientation, alumni and donor events; athletic
competitions; celebrations, or other activity that brings parents of enrolled students or
non-enrolled students to the campus. A special event does not include individual parent
meetings or activity associated with the School’s daily educational programing. Special
events are subject to the following additional restrictions:
a. Thirty-seven (37) of the maximum allowed special events may exceed 100
attendees, including five (5) major special events that may exceed 500 attendees.
b. Inclusive of all special events, the maximum number of weekday evening special
events, after 6pm, shall not exceed 32 events.
c. Inclusive of all special events, the maximum number of Saturday special events,
after 6pm, shall not exceed 5 events.
d. No special events are permitted on Sunday.
e. No special event during the weekday shall begin prior to 8am, or 9am on Saturday.
f. No more than half of the maximum allowed special events may extend past 6pm.
Those special events that extend past 6pm must end by 8pm, except for student
performances, dances and major events, which shall end no later than 10pm.
g. The School shall minimize the number of special events occurring on consecutive
days and, for larger events, occurring on consecutive weekends.
h. All special events are subject to the requirements of Mitigation Measure 4a
included in the MMRP.
i. A list of all special events for the upcoming academic year shall be provided to the
Director of Planning and Development Services before school begins and posted
on the School’s website for the duration of the academic year. The number of
event attendees and applicable parking plan required in Mitigation Measure 4a
shall be similarly posted. The purpose of this condition is to provide a reasonable
expectation when such events are anticipated and ensure the maximum number
of events is not exceeded or occur during restricted hours. Occasional adjustments
to the event schedule or minor exceedances to the ending time of an event during
the academic year shall not constitute a violation of this condition of approval
provided other applicable restrictions are met.
j. All special events shall comply with the approved transportation demand
management.
2.b
Packet Pg. 31
7. The Director of Planning and Development Services may approve a request to use the
School’s campus by the Palo Alto Unified School District, up to five times per academic
year, without the need for a Temporary Use Permit or counting as special event as defined
in Condition #6. This condition is intended to support and encourage continued
collaboration between PAUSD and Castilleja in a manner that is minimally intrusive to the
Castilleja neighborhood and may allow some of the School’s larger events to occur off
campus. The Director may impose conditions deemed necessary to address impacts of
such events on the public. Nothing in this condition is intended to preclude the School
from applying for a Temporary Use Permit in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code
section ______.
OPERATIONS-RELATED:
8. Standard School hours are Mondays through Fridays 7am to 6pm. Co-curricular
programming involving fewer than 50 students and confined to indoor spaces may occur
outside of these hours.
9. Summer school programs shall be subject to all conditions and restrictions that apply to
school year programs, except that summer use of the playing fields or the pool shall not
occur before 9:00am. The School shall provide a minimum one-week student break
between the school year and the summer program(s). The School is prohibited from
renting or loaning the campus to another summer school program, organization or group
provider.
10. Following construction of the Academic Building, all deliveries and bus pickups and drop
offs shall be accomplished within the below grade parking garage or designated
pickup/drop off areas on campus accessed from the driveway from Kellogg Avenue.
11. Removal of the temporary campus on Spieker Field shall commence within six months of
the City’s issuance of a final occupancy permit for the Academic Building.
12. At all times the School shall comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance. Except for swimming
pool-related activity, which is subject to Mitigation Measure 8b, and emergencies,
including drills, no outdoor amplified sound equipment shall be used on the campus
without approval of a noise exception permit from the City. For the purposes of this
permit, “amplified sound equipment” includes bull horns, air horns, loudspeakers, or
similar noise-generating equipment. Amplified outdoor sound associated with the
swimming pool shall be prohibited between 8pm and 7am. The School shall take
reasonable efforts to mitigate School-related noise complaints from nearby residents. If
noise complaints are not satisfactorily resolved, the Director of Planning and
Development Services may require the placement of noise monitors to collect data and
determine compliance with this condition. Any consultant costs, installation, monitoring
or remedial action required to address noise-related complaints shall be paid for by the
School.
2.b
Packet Pg. 32
The School is also subject to requirements of Mitigation Measure 8a and 8b related to
construction and pool use. If noise levels exceed these standards, the activity causing the
noise shall be abated until appropriate noise reduction measures have been installed and
compliance verified by the City.
13. The School’s adjacent Emerson Street residential properties shall not be used for any
School related purpose, including but not limited to, additional parking, storage or staging
of materials or equipment, deliveries or student pick-up or drop-off. These parcels do not
have City approval for use or activity supporting the School and are limited to residential
and accessory uses customarily incidental to single family residential uses.
14. Outdoor athletic practices and games shall be limited to daylight hours only. No field
lighting shall be installed. This does not preclude lighting for safety, landscaping and
pathways approved by the City.
15. The following restrictions apply to the School’s gym operations in accordance with prior
City approvals:
a. Activities are not permitted in the lower basement level of the Physical Arts
Building that would cause the number of occupants to exceed 500.
b. Ventilation equipment for the gym is not to be operational from 9 pm to 6 am.
However, the ventilation equipment may be operational until 10 pm when the
gym is used for evening events as listed on the School’s event calendar.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
16. The School is required to provide the following information on its website to serve as a
resource to nearby residents and provide access to certain documents and information.
This information shall be posted prior to the start of the 2021-2022 academic year and
updated annually thereafter to include the following:
a. A signed copy of the Record of Land Use Action authorizing the School’s use and
expansion project along with the mitigation monitoring and reporting program
and transportation demand management plan.
b. A list of all planned special events in accordance with Condition #6.
c. Information on the maximum number of students authorized by this conditional
use permit and the actual student enrollment figures for each academic year as
soon as they are available, but no later than November 1 each year. Prior to March
1st each year, the School shall post the findings of an independent auditor
attesting to the number of enrolled students for that academic year as required
by Condition #5.
d. All monitoring and reporting documents required by these conditions of approval,
including but not limited to transportation demand management program
monitoring reports and the annual landscape maintenance contract (Mitigation
Measure 7b).
e. The School shall provide regular construction updates to inform nearby residents
2.b
Packet Pg. 33
of the status, schedule and upcoming construction activity, information on lane
closures, when heavy truck traffic is expected or use or particularly noisy
equipment or vibration causing equipment. The website shall include an
opportunity for the public to opt-in to receive twice monthly construction news
updates by email.
17. Prior to the 2021-2022 academic year, the School shall establish and maintain a dedicated
phone number to be answered by someone affiliated with the School who will
immediately respond to complaints regarding noise, special events, academic
competitions, traffic and parking or other neighborhood disturbances., Prior to the start
of each academic year, the School shall send notice to all property owners and tenants
within 600 feet of the School’s property boundaries informing occupants of this dedicated
phone number and a link to find these conditions of approval on the School’s website.
18. The School shall host regular neighborhood meetings to report on school operations,
receive feedback, and attempt to problem solve any identified issues. A minimum of two
meetings shall be scheduled each academic year, one in the fall semester and another in
the spring semester. The School shall provide a summary of the topics discussed and any
follow up action to Director of Planning and Development Services staff within 30 days of
the meeting.
19. The School shall communicate with the parents of enrolled students the rules and
expectations of the School and these conditions of approval. The School distribute a
transportation and parking handbook that institutionalizes and encourages good
neighbor parking and driving behavior detailed in Condition 25.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT:
20. Sixty (60) days following the effective date of the Council’s action on this application, the
School shall prepare a complete transportation demand management (TDM) plan that
compiles all applicable transportation-related requirements of this Record of Land Use
Action into a cohesive, well-organized and indexed document. The TDM plan shall be
submitted to the Director of Planning and Development Services for approval. The intent
of the TDM plan is to reduce vehicle trips to, and parking demand at, the school for the
purpose of minimizing School-related disruptions and intrusions into the nearby
residential neighborhoods. The TDM plan shall also serve as a publicly available resource
to inform interested residents of the School’s transportation-related expectations and
requirements and, therefore, may include performance standards or operational
conditions of approval not typically associated with a TDM plan. As required below, the
TDM plan shall incorporate requirements from several source documents. The TDM plan
required by this condition does not need to be a verbatim restatement of the
transportation management requirements but shall include specific performance
measures and criteria where appropriate and generally document the implementation
strategies to effectuate the intent of these provisions. Where a dispute between the City
and School is unresolved regarding implementation of this condition, the Director shall
2.b
Packet Pg. 34
schedule a hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission for a
recommended resolution to the City Council. The TDM plan shall apply to the 2021-2022
academic school year and every year thereafter.
21. The TDM plan shall incorporate all transportation-related provisions from the following
source documents:
a. All components of the School’s current transportation demand management plan
(on file with the City of Palo Alto), including but not limited to: implementation of
an incentive program for faculty, staff and students for carpooling and using
alternative means of transportation; annually posting and reporting on special
events; and, bi-annual communications with parents reminding them of the
importance/purpose of the School’s TDM strategies.
b. All applicable Mitigation Measures from the Certified Final EIR and particularly
Mitigation Measures 4a and 7a (on file with the City of Palo Alto and attached to
this document).
c. All applicable conditions included in this Record of Land Use Action.
d. Reference to applicable sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code regarding TDM
programs, monitoring, reporting and penalties.
e. The TDM supplement submitted by the applicant and prepared by the
transportation firm Nelson Nygaard, dated June 17, 2019, which includes updated
monitoring report requirements and introduces new TDM strategies (on file with
the City of Palo Alto and temporarily available online: LINK).
22. The following additional performance measures and requirements shall be incorporated
into the TDM Plan:
a. Average Daily Trips (ADT) Standard: During the 2021-22 academic year, the
School’s Average Daily Trips (ADT) shall not exceed 1198 trips (a rate of 2.74 trips
per student, based on 2017 calculations). At the maximum enrollment of 540
students, the School’s ADT shall not exceed 1296 trips (a rate of 2.4 trips per
student, based on the EIR calculations). Following construction of the
subterranean parking facility, as student enrollment begins to increase annually,
the ADT target shall be calculated beginning with the starting trip level (1198 trips
in 2021-22 academic year) and adding 0.96 times the number of new students
added annually over the starting enrollment level (426 students).
b. Data from permanent driveway counters placed at all entrance and exit driveways
will be used to calculate ADT. Refer to condition 24 regarding the monitoring
report for the ways ADT shall be calculated.
c. A violation of the ADT target occurs when one of the ADT measures using driveway
counts exceeds the trip target.
d. AM Peak Trips Standard: During the 2021-22 academic year, the School’s AM Peak
trips shall not exceed 383 trips. At the maximum enrollment of 540 students, the
2.b
Packet Pg. 35
School’s AM Peak trips shall not exceed 440 trips. Following construction of the
subterranean parking facility, as student enrollment begins to increase annually,
the AM Peak target shall be calculated beginning with the starting AM trip level
(383 trips in 2021-22 academic year) and adding 0.5 times the number of new
students added annually over the starting enrollment level (426 students).
e. Data from permanent driveway counters placed at all entrance and exit driveways
will be used to calculate AM Peak Trips. Refer to condition 24 regarding the
monitoring report for the ways ADT shall be calculated.
f. A violation of the AM Peak Trips target occurs when one of the AM Peak Trips
measures using driveway counts exceeds the trip target.
g. The School shall install permanent vehicle counter devices at the entrance/exit of
all drop off locations on campus, surface parking lots, and the subterranean garage
to count the number of vehicle trips arriving to the campus and exiting each day.
The data collected by these devices shall be provided to the City at the end of each
month showing the unmodified counts for every 15-minute interval from each
location. The School will preserve count data electronically for a period not less
than three years. The vehicle counting devices shall be kept in working order.
Malfunctioning devices shall be promptly fixed. A device that is out of order or
provides inaccurate data for more than 10 consecutive days shall be considered a
violation of this condition. It is the intent of this condition to also record vehicle
trips during the construction phase of the project.
h. The School, in consultation with the Director of Planning and Development
Services, shall install temporary vehicle counter devices in the public right of way
at locations determined by the Director for each TDM monitoring report required
by these conditions of approval. Data shall be collected for no less than seven (7)
consecutive days for each reporting period. The data collected by the counters
shall be included in the TDM monitoring reports and used for ongoing monitoring
and not to determine a violation of this conditional use permit. However, the data
collected may inform future action regarding possible adjustments to the TDM
plan to further minimize neighborhood traffic impacts.
i. The School shall provide roundtrip shuttle service to appropriate Caltrain stations
that coincide with the School’s arrival and dismissal schedule and available to
students, faculty and staff. The School shall determine the appropriate frequency
of roundtrip shuttle service to maximize this incentive, but no less than two
roundtrips for each schedule shall be provided.
j. The School’s TDM plan shall apply to special events. In addition, the School shall
provide roundtrip shuttle service for all special events to encourage participants
to use transit or a park and ride service. The shuttle pickup/drop off location(s)
and schedule shall be included with other event information shared with potential
attendees and shall also include a parking plan for each special event.
k. The School shall routinely monitor and reassess drop-off/pick-up assignments to
2.b
Packet Pg. 36
balance traffic flows in accordance with the expectations set forth in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. The actual and target distribution
percentages shall be included in TDM monitoring reports.
23. Notwithstanding Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.52.050 (d) (1), TDM monitoring
reports shall be prepared by the School and submitted to the Director of Planning and
Development Services three times per academic year until the school has reached, or
approximately reached, maximum enrollment for two consecutive years and has
consistently met the peak hour and daily trip rate standards required by these conditions.
At that time, only two monitoring reports per year shall be required. Monitoring reports
shall be provided to the City in accordance with the following schedule:
a. Reporting Three Times / Year
i. Report due by January 15 and covers the academic period from August
through November.
ii. Report due by May 15 and covers the academic period from December
through March.
iii. Report due by September 15 and covers the academic period from April
through July.
b. Reporting Twice / Year
iv. Report due by February 15 and covers the period from July through
December.
v. Report due by August 1 and covers the academic period from January
through June.
24. Required TDM monitoring reports shall include the following components:
a. Describe in full the requirements of the recurring Monitoring Report, including
TDM Plan goals and performance measure targets and data collected.
b. Include the following data and metrics:
i. driveway volume counts by 15-minute increments (raw counter data);
ii. the total average weekday AM peak trips and average weekday daily trips
for the monitoring period, excluding special event dates;
iii. the total average daily weekday trips and AM weekday peak trips during
the weeks the campus frontage street segments are evaluated by the City;
iv. the average daily weekday traffic volumes on the campus frontage City
street segments (except Embarcadero) per these conditions – raw data to
provided by the City according to the reporting schedule;
v. the dates and number of times the average weekday daily trips and/or AM
weekday peak trips exceeded AM weekday peak and/or ADT exceedance
threshold, including any special, limited circumstances such as trips during
construction;
vi. rates of use of alternative transportation (% of mode split between bicycle,
pedestrian, shuttles, etc.);
vii. parking conditions (number of spaces within the garage used, number of
2.b
Packet Pg. 37
spaces within surface lots used, extent (counts) of on-street parking
adjacent to the school and in the expanded parking study area);
viii. bicycle parking counts (supply and demand) and dates, times, &
attendance of bicycle repair clinics.
ix. student drop-off/pick-up location counts and percentages by driveway.
x. an electronically transmitted appendix to the report containing the raw
data from the driveway counting devices for the monitoring period.
c. Describe how and where counts were conducted. Describe any off-site data
collected by an independent traffic engineering company.
d. Driveway Counting Device: Describe installation, calibration methods, function
and proposed maintenance of permanent traffic counting devices. Describe how
records of traffic counts are to be preserved electronically and frequency of
posting of this data to the School’s website for accessibility to City officials and the
public.
e. Include a detailed explanation of the pick-up and drop-off process as well as target
pick-up/drop-off distribution percentages.
f. Include the number of daily (while school is in session) onsite traffic attendants.
g. Describe the use of traffic safety warning devices.
h. Provide a map of each parking study area, and description of methodology
employed to capture off-campus parking.
i. Describe on and off campus Parking Management Strategies, Traffic Circulation
Management Strategies and Event Traffic Procedures.
j. Identify scope and breadth of TDM measures utilized (i.e. programs that
encourages walking/biking/transit, Auto trip reduction strategies, etc.).
k. Describe other programs provided by the school in detail (i.e. organized vans,
shuttles, transit subsidies) and how the mode split data was collected (survey,
website, etc.).
l. Provide the number of enrolled students for the period covered by the report.
m. List the dates of special events that occurred in the period covered by the report,
including times, attendance, and parking/traffic management efforts and results.
n. Provide copies of mailings to families regarding the parking/traffic/pick-up/drop-
off policy, including traffic management for special events.
o. Include a list of disciplinary consequences for students and parents who do not
cooperate with the parking requirements
p. Provide the TDM Monitoring Report in a simplified, easy to read compliance
review matrix format.
25. The School shall update its transportation and parking handbook and distribute it annually
to the parents of enrolled students in advance of the upcoming academic year. The
handbook shall be incorporated into the Castilleja School long range planning efforts and
made part of the Board Policies and Procedures Manual. The handbook shall include the
following policies and any applicable provisions from these conditions of approval:
a. At the beginning of each school year an updated parking/traffic/pick-up/drop-off
2.b
Packet Pg. 38
policy shall be communicated to parents to remind them of the importance of the
Parking and Traffic policy. Regular newsletters to parents will include a TDM
section with any relevant updates:
i. Parents shall be instructed not to double-park on street nor drop-off or
pick- up students in undesignated areas.
ii. Traffic monitors will direct cars to maintain a constant flow of traffic to
avoid queueing on public streets.
iii. Parents shall be instructed not to make left turns in or out of driveways at
peak times. Signs shall be posted to indicate these turning rules.
iv. Castilleja School shall continue to provide traffic monitors during peak
drop-off, pick-up and for special events. The traffic monitors shall educate
students and parents and enforce the circulation related conditions of
approval to keep surrounding streets clear of congestion. Traffic monitors
will be identified by wearing a highly visible safety vest.
v. Once per day, School personnel shall monitor parking onsite and on
surrounding public streets. The School shall notify any violators that they
must move their car(s).
vi. Castilleja students, faculty, staff, and parents shall be instructed to park
exclusively either on campus, at designated off-site lots made available for
School use, or on the School side of adjacent streets where parking is
permitted. Daily monitoring of parking shall be conducted, and offenders
shall be instructed where to park.
vii. The School shall develop clear disciplinary consequences for students and
parents who do not cooperate with the parking requirements.
viii. Oversight for the Transportation Demand Management Plan shall be the
responsibility of the Head of School. Other staff may be assigned
responsibilities regarding the daily operation and enforcement of the plan.
As the designated person or persons could change each year as job
responsibilities are redefined, at the beginning of each year Castilleja shall
provide neighbors and the City of Palo Alto with a list of individual contacts
with emails and phone numbers. Head of School shall ensure all personnel
fully understand and are trained to complete their responsibilities: A log
shall be kept of all communication (i.e. email, telephone calls) and the
expressed concerns which are received. School staff shall review the log
for trends and respond to remedy any problems. If any neighbor feels their
concern was not properly responded to, they should contact the number
the School publishes for complaints (condition #19).
ix. At the beginning of every school year Castilleja shall set aside scheduled
time for all faculty and staff to register their cars, receive an I.D. tag and
review the traffic and parking policies.
x. At the beginning of each semester Castilleja shall register all student cars,
distribute I.D. tags, and review the traffic and parking policies with student
drivers.
xi. For special events, Castilleja School shall utilize the area on Spieker Field
2.b
Packet Pg. 39
for overflow parking, as needed.
xii. Castilleja shall continue its major transportation campaign with families to
emphasize carpools and use of Castilleja buses and shuttles, Caltrain and
other alternative means of transportation. Every Castilleja family shall
receive information promoting carpooling and providing information to
facilitate car/vanpooling in their immediate geographic area.
xiii. Castilleja shall experiment with a plan for an assigned parking program
with designated areas for certain types of parking (i.e. student, employee,
visitor).
xiv. Castilleja shall designate a Visitor Parking Zone in the area of the
Administration Building. Visitors shall register in the Administration
Building. At that time, they shall be asked where they are parked and
redirected to the visitor's zones if necessary.
xv. Castilleja will continue to review its event calendaring process and develop
procedures to more strategically plan school functions and their
placement on the calendar so that functions with more than 100 attendees
coming to campus do not become bunched on consecutive nights or
weekends.
xvi. Castilleja has five Major Events each year (a start of year ceremony, back
to school night, a community building event, Founder's Day Luncheon, and
Baccalaureate/Graduation) that will bring almost all students and parents
to the Castilleja Campus. For these occasions Castilleja shall provide traffic
monitors to make sure that all vehicles park legally and safely on all street
parking. Castilleja shall maximize all on-site parking and use tandem
parking whenever feasible. Shuttles to Caltrain shall operate so that guests
may attend without bringing a car to the campus area, and the shuttle
schedule shall be published along with the parking plan for these events.
A complete list of these events including date, time of event and number
of expected attendees shall be published annually and distributed to
neighbors and the City of Palo Alto.
xvii. The School shall review the parking/traffic requirements of each event and
develop appropriate parking and shuttle service to Caltrain. Parking
instructions and Caltrain shuttle schedules shall be included in event
notifications. Castilleja shall provide traffic monitors for these events and
shall direct as much traffic as possible onto the school site, using assisted
tandem parking, allowing students to use all lots after hours, using the day-
time loading zones for parking, and utilizing all resources to minimize
impact to street parking. For certain events as needed, Castilleja shall make
every effort to arrange off-site parking with nearby parking lots and
provide shuttle service to the parking locations using school vehicles to
transport people to and from the school. The availability of these lots is
dependent on events and cooperation from lot owners.
xviii. For School committee meetings which bring volunteers to the campus,
Castilleja shall coordinate a parking plan and shuttle schedule that will be
2.b
Packet Pg. 40
communicated to all committee members. At the beginning of meetings,
a reminder of parking policies shall be announced to all attendees. Anyone
not following the policy shall be requested to move their car. When
meeting notices are sent to committee members, a parking reminder and
shuttle schedule shall be included.
xix. Castilleja shall give all summer camp families Castilleja written instructions
for a drop-off/pick-up procedure at the beginning of each camp session.
Drop- off and pick-up shall be conducted on-site. Castilleja personnel shall
facilitate getting campers into vehicles and ensure all policies are followed.
It shall be the responsibility of the Director of Summer Camp to enforce
the policies with parents.
xx. Parents shall be instructed to move out of the driveway if their daughter is
not at the pick-up location and others are waiting.
xxi. Castilleja School shall develop a comprehensive incentive program for
faculty, staff, and students for carpooling and using alternative means of
transportation
26. After implementation of the TDM Plan, the Director of Planning and Development
Services may, based on empirical data or other information that would reasonably impact
the effective of the TDM plan, determine that one or more of the above TDM strategies
has become infeasible or ineffective. Upon such determination, the School shall propose
an alternative measure(s) in consultation with the Director to achieve the intended
performance of the replaced strategy or strategies.
27. From time to time, the City may require supplemental traffic counts or studies to be
funded by the School to assess and possibly redistribute student drop-off/pickup to
further limit impacts on surrounding streets.
ENFORCEMENT, COMPLIANCE AND REPORTING
28. These Conditions of Approval (COAs) incorporate the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP), attached hereto, based on the 2019-2020 Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) analysis prepared for the Castilleja School project. These COAs and
the MMRP are in compliance with Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which requires that the Lead Agency “adopt a program for
monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the
measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects.” These
COAs and the MMRP list mitigation measures recommended in the project Final EIR dated
July 30, 2020 and identify mitigation monitoring requirements. In addition, the City’s
Standard Conditions of Approval were identified in the Draft EIR as measures that would
minimize potential adverse effects that could result from implementation of the project.
This Record of Land Use Action ensures the approval conditions are clear to enable City
staff oversight, monitoring and enforcement. All mitigation measures and Conditions of
Approval identified in the 2020 CEQA Analysis are included herein. To the extent that
there is any inconsistency between the COA and Mitigation Measures, the more
2.b
Packet Pg. 41
restrictive conditions shall govern; to the extent any mitigation measures and/or COA
identified in the 2020 CEQA document were inadvertently omitted, they are automatically
incorporated herein by reference.
29. Upon written notice from the City of Palo Alto, increases to student enrollment may be
suspended when the School is found to be in violation of any conditions of approval,
including but not limited to the approved transportation demand management plan,
anticipated student drop off distribution, or environmental mitigation measures, subject
to the following criteria:
a. Following initial notice of a violation, the School shall be given 45 days to take
corrective action and demonstrate compliance to avoid a suspension in
enrollment.
b. Any determination to reduce or suspend increases in enrollment from the Director
of Planning and Development Services shall be made within 60 days of the initial
notice. This determination may be appealed in writing within 14 days, in
accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.78 and subject to applicable fees.
c. A final determination to suspend increases to enrollment made after the start of
the academic year and prior to March 1 shall apply to the next academic year.
Final determinations made on or after March 1 but before the start of the next
academic year shall apply to the following academic year regardless of whether
the School has remedied any violation(s) that were the cause of the suspended
enrollment. The term final determination used in this context includes the time
to process an appeal, if filed.
30. Violation of any term, condition or Mitigation Measure relating to the Approvals is
unlawful, prohibited, and a violation of the Palo Alto Municipal Code pursuant to PAMC
Section 18.01.080. The City of Palo Alto reserves the right to initiate civil and/or criminal
enforcement and/or abatement proceedings, or after notice and public hearing, to revoke
the Approvals or alter these Conditions/Mitigation Measures if it is found that there is
violation of any of the Conditions/ Mitigation Measures or the provisions of the Municipal
Code, or the project operates as or causes a public nuisance. This provision is not intended
to, nor does it, limit in any manner whatsoever the ability of the City to take appropriate
enforcement actions, including but not limited to the imposition of administrative
financial penalties. The project applicant shall be responsible for paying fees in
accordance with the City’s Municipal Fee Schedule for inspections conducted by the City
or a City-designated third-party to investigate alleged violations of the Conditions of
Approval.
31. The School shall deposit $15,000 with the City of Palo Alto to cover all City costs
associated with an annual review of the school’s compliance with these conditions of
approval, the cost of the City’s consultant review of School-generated technical reports
required by these conditions (including reports analyzing raw traffic data in accordance
with these conditions), and handling of community complaints of alleged violations. The
2.b
Packet Pg. 42
deposit amount shall be replenished within 30 days after receiving notice from the City
that deposit balance is $5,000 or less.
32. Before the start of each academic year, the School shall fund the City’s installation of
temporary vehicle traffic counter devices, for each TDM plan monitoring report required
by these conditions for the corresponding academic year. The counting devices shall be
placed on street segments identified in MM7a (Emerson, Bryant, and Kellogg).
33. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the School shall deposit funds with the City of Palo
Alto in the amount provided on the City’s municipal fee schedule to cover the full costs of
independent technical review, monitoring and inspection to ensure compliance with the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
34. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the School shall provide a fair share contribution to
the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee, in the amount of $_______ to address
cumulative year local impact (non-CEQA impact) at the intersection of Kingsley Avenue
and Alma Street.
35. In addition to the enforcement measures contained in Mitigation Measure 7a and
conditions #28-30, the School shall be subject to the following for violation of conditions
#21-24:
a. During the construction period, violation of the AM Peak or ADT thresholds
provided in Condition #22 shall be subject to the following schedule:
i. For each of the first two consecutive reporting periods where the AM Peak
or ADT thresholds are exceeded, additional TDM measures shall be
required;
ii. If there are three consecutive reporting periods (and for each consecutive
violation thereafter) during which AM Peak or ADT thresholds are
exceeded, the Director shall scale back the student enrollment level until
the TDM program is operating in compliance with the targets; in the event
the Director reduces the enrollment level, the enrollment level cannot be
increased until the School is successful in meeting the targets for two
consecutive reporting periods.
iii. Construction trips shall be excluded from the trip counts for AM Peak and
ADT.
b. Violation of TDM program requirements or transportation conditions other than
AM Peak and ADT thresholds may result in penalties as provided in Conditions
#28-30.
INDEMNIFICATION/SEVERABILITY:
36. To the extent permitted by law, the School shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and
against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified
2.b
Packet Pg. 43
parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized
hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual
attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole
discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
37. Approval of the project would not have been granted but for the applicability and validity
of each and every one of the specified conditions and/or mitigations, and if one or more
of such conditions and/or mitigations is found to be invalid by a court of competent
jurisdiction this Approval would not have been granted without requiring other valid
conditions and/or mitigations consistent with achieving the same purpose and intent of
such Approval.
2.b
Packet Pg. 44
Page 1
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Planning & Transportation Commission 1
Draft Excerpt Minutes: September 9, 2020 2
Teleconference 3
6:00 PM 4
5
Call to Order / Roll Call 6
Present: Templeton, Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Summa 7
8
3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: Castilleja School Project, 1310 Bryant Street, 9
1235 and 1263 Emerson Street [16PLN00238]: Request by Castilleja School 10
Foundation for Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation to City 11
Council on Applications for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment to Increase 12
the Student Enrollment Cap to 540 Students with Phased Enrollment and Campus 13
Redevelopment, and a Variance to Replace Campus Gross Floor Area. The Project 14
(but not the Project Alternative) Requires Recommendation on a Variance for 15
Subterranean Encroachment Into the Embarcadero Road Special Setback and a 16
Tentative Map with Exception to Merge Three Parcels Where the Resulting Parcel 17
Would Further Exceed the Maximum Lot Size in the R-1(10,000) Zone District. Zone 18
District: R-1(10,000). Environmental Review: Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 19
Published July 29, 2020; Draft EIR Published July 15, 2019. For More Information 20
Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org 21
22
Chair Templeton: I think we should start with counsel telling us… reminding us about the public 23
comment rules. Especially, given the concern about the new information from Staff that just 24
came out. Are you able to comment on that Mr. Yang? 25
26
Mr. Yang: So, this is a continued public hearing from the previous PTC meeting and as a result 27
there’s… it’s not necessary to have another public comment period because there… in our view, 28
there’s not been a significant change in the project or the item that’s before you. 29
30
Yes, Staff has issued a Staff Report responding to the Commission’s questions said at its last 31
meeting, but these are largely clarification items. It’s akin to or responding to Commissioner 32
questions if we had just continued on into the wee hours of the morning that last time. 33
34
Chair Templeton: Thank you for clarifying. Ok, so we have a possible presentation from Ms. 35
French to address the items that were put in the At Place Packet. Is that something you’d like to 36
share with us now? 37
38
2.c
Packet Pg. 45
Page 2
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, I’ll try to share my screen. 1
2
Chair Templeton: Thank you. 3
4
Ms. Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director: And just as she prepares for that, our intention was not 5
to respond to each question. Ms. French will provide kind of an overview of where we left off 6
and where we are, but we are available at the pleasure of the Chair and of the Commissioners 7
to go into more detail as discussion items are brought forward or questions that you’d like to 8
have oral conversation about. 9
10
Ms. French: Ok, can everyone see my screen? 11
12
Ms. Tanner: We can Amy. If you can go to display settings at the top of your screen and switch 13
your display. That may improve (interrupted) 14
15
Commissioner Alcheck: I just had… can I jump in real quick? I want to update the disclosure for 16
the… this quasi-judicial item. I did reach out to Castilleja among a number of other schools but 17
because they’re the applicant I just wanted to disclose that I reached out to their 18
representatives to inquire about the conditions that are applicable. And they pointed me to the 19
letter that they prepared… that their attorney-prepared and its footnotes on Page 6 which is 20
public information now. So, but I did want to disclose that I did reach out to them for the 21
purposes of better understanding the specifics of the conditions that they are already operating 22
under or preserve to be interested in operating under this application. I also reached out to 23
some other schools too, but they’re not (interrupted) 24
25
Chair Templeton: Thank you for sharing that Commissioner Alcheck. Any other changes to 26
disclosures? Commissioner Summa. 27
28
Commissioner Summa: Yes, I have a disclosure, but I also have some questions about the 29
process about the timing of submissions and also oral speakers to this item. Should those be 30
addressed now or after Staff’s (interrupted) 31
32
Chair Templeton: If we could give Staff the chance to orient us to what process they have in 33
mind for sharing… they have a couple of context items to share. Then we’ll go to you first to 34
address your questions about the process for our discussion. Would that be ok? 35
36
Commissioner Summa: Ok, yeah, I don’t need to be first. I just wanted to know what time but I 37
do have a disclosure and that’s what… that I was at a regular neighborhood association meeting 38
to update people about the NVCAP process as I had asked to do. And they actually had… they 39
were going to discuss the Castilleja process. So, I’d left the meeting so there wouldn’t be an 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 46
Page 3
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
appearance; but I just want to be super careful in case somebody knew I was at that meeting 1
that I did excuse myself because I didn’t feel it was right to stay. 2
3
Chair Templeton: Alright, thank you. Any other changes to disclosures since our last meeting? 4
Alright, over to you Ms. French. 5
6
Ms. French: Ok, thank you. Let me try that again. Is everyone seeing the presentation? It’s a 7
short one I promise. 8
9
Ms. Tanner: We can see it, Amy. Thank you. 10
11
Ms. French: Thank you. We are back. Last we met was August 26th where we had a Staff 12
presentation, applicant presentation, a presentation on the EIR Environmental Impact Report, 13
and public comment; extensive public comments. The topic was focused on Alternative Number 14
Four which is the Disbursed Circulation and Reduced Garage Alternative. There was not enough 15
time for the Planning and Transportation Commissioners to take up discussion, in-depth 16
discussion on this project. 17
18
So, there was a round of questions that the Planning and Transportation Commission was able 19
to ask of Staff to return with answers, which we have done in the At Place Memo. It is a long 20
memo, there were a lot of questions. There were some correspondence and other comments in 21
response to the Planning and Transportation Commission’s questions. PNQL, the neighborhood 22
group, was one of those (a group that provided comments) and those were transmitted to the 23
Planning and Transportation Commission last week. The applicant provided clarification letters 24
and those were received in the last two days, yesterday and today. The applicant had noted 25
during the Planning and Transportation Commission that there was going to be a letter 26
forthcoming and it did come to Staff yesterday and was turned around to send to the Planning 27
and Transportation Commission and post on the web page. We have a very transparent web 28
page. We post many items on those pages for the project. The applicant’s temporary campus 29
layout was also received. We have previously received the Original Project temporary campus 30
layout and more recently we’ve received this modified drawing showing how that temporary 31
campus would lay out with the Emerson homes in place and those trees. And then of course we 32
were able to create excerpt minutes from the Planning and Transportation Commission 33
minutes. They’re in a draft state. Those are also on the project webpage. 34
35
So tonight, this is the purpose. This is a continued hearing. The Planning and Transportation 36
Commission had closed the public testimony to enable the Planning and Transportation 37
Commission to begin its discussion on the project. On areas related to the Environmental 38
Impact Report and the Discretionary Applications that are on file for the Conditional Use Permit 39
and the Variance for replacement of Gross Floor Area. The Planning and Transportation 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 47
Page 4
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commission is welcome to provide direction at the conclusion of its discussion based on the 1
information that has been provided. The direction would include continuing the hearing either 2
for further deliberation or to provide initial guidance to Staff to prepare draft Findings and 3
conditions that would be forwarded to the Planning and Transportation Commission. 4
5
I said it would be short. These are the next hearing dates. The Historic Resources Board hearing 6
has been advertised. It is set for this September 24th and then on October 1st is a tentative date 7
for Architectural Review Board discussion of revised approaches that we are receiving now 8
from the applicant in response to ARB comments back on August 20th. And you have here 9
potential dates for continued Planning and Transportation Commission hearings. That 10
concludes the brief portion of my presentation. I’m going to switch off and send it back to the 11
Planning and Transportation Commission. Let me see if I (interrupted) 12
13
Chair Templeton: Thank you, Ms. French. Just to clarify if people want… if the public would like 14
to give comments on this project, even though the public comment period of this item is 15
closed. They can email into us and they can also come to those other two Commissions that you 16
mentioned, the ARB and the HRB. When would be the next time that they would be able to give 17
verbal comments in front of this body? Is that if it’s re-agendize or how does that work? 18
19
Ms. French: At the pleasure of the Chair and Commission, this is in your court to continue to a 20
date that you choose for further discussion or deliberation. 21
22
Chair Templeton: Alright, thank you for clarifying that. Commissioner Summa. 23
24
Commissioner Summa: Thank you so much. So, I have two areas of discomfort with this 25
evening. We had a lot of… a very lengthy discussion at our last meeting about whether we 26
should even have… that we could… should… that it was desirable to meet on this date since we 27
knew that we had one… Vice Chair Roohparvar had a planned absence and there was some 28
discussion about whether Commissioner Riggs would be here. And I had thought he would and 29
now he’s not here, so we now have two people absent on a very important issue. And I believe 30
Vice Chair Roohparvar also said that she would send in her written comments for the benefit of 31
her colleagues which I didn’t see anywhere. I hope I didn’t miss them. So, I’m feeling a loss of 32
two of my colleagues for this very important discussion. 33
34
And then my second area of discomfort is with the two… well, I guess there’s really three. The 35
other is we could take more public comment tonight. We have a lot of new information that 36
came in very, very late and that is at the… as Ms. French said that’s at the… our discretion. And 37
as Mr. Yang said it’s not necessary to have it tonight, but I would think it would be appropriate. 38
39
2.c
Packet Pg. 48
Page 5
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
I would also be more than happy to just continue the meeting tonight. I don’t know how many 1
people had time to look at the two late submissions. One from the applicant team which was 2
only emailed to us at 8 o’clock last night and I have to admit I saw it at 6:30 this morning as I 3
was reading my emails and doing crossword puzzles on my phone. So, I certainly did not have 4
enough time to absorb that and the 30 Page memo from Staff before this meeting. So, I would 5
be… and of course, the public has not had a chance. I don’t think even Staff has had a chance to 6
look at the applicant’s additional submission that came in last night. So, I feel we’re kind of 7
working in the dark here and there’s a lot of benefit to me for everyone involved to delaying 8
the meeting a little bit; which we were maybe not even going to be able to meet tonight 9
anyway. There’s very… a lot of benefits and very little downside but there is, to me, a lot of 10
downside to proceed with members of the public or Staff not having… and the Commission not 11
having had to time to review the documents carefully. I mean it was actually just too much to 12
read, much less go through and look up the code and understand anything. There were also a 13
tremendous number of late letters from the public and I would also like to note that the… that 14
Ms. French put in the process slide that we did get comments… written comments from the 15
neighborhood group PNQL, but of course they hadn’t commented on the late submissions. So 16
(interrupted) 17
18
Chair Templeton: Do you want to make a motion? 19
20
Commissioner Summa: I don’t know if anybody else has had… has similar concern. So, I’d like to 21
hear from my colleagues and Staff. 22
23
Chair Templeton: Do you want to make a motion and then… and speak to it or do you just want 24
to go around and have other rounds of comments? If you make a motion you can constrict the 25
conversation to whether to continue or not. 26
27
Commissioner Summa: No, I’d rather hear my colleague’s comments before I make a motion. 28
29
Chair Templeton: Ok. Comments may… one of the things process-wise I wanted to throw out to 30
our Commission is do we want to suggest time bounds for our first round of comments? I know 31
many of you have a significant number of questions. So, before we do this round of comments, 32
do we want to discuss that? So, I see several hands raised so, could you… I’m going to write 33
down the order and then you can lower your hand if you want to… don’t want to speak to that. 34
Alcheck, Lauing, and Hechtman. Ok. Commissioner Alcheck. 35
36
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, thank you, Chair Templeton. I’ll… I mean I’d like to get started 37
tonight. I’ll respond I guess briefly I think to Commissioner Summa’s sentiment. I’m not… I 38
mean to be perfectly honest, I’d… this… tonight’s process seems entirely as we envisioned it 39
would be at the conclusion at our last meeting. So, I’m going to suggest how I remember the 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 49
Page 6
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
evening going. We went extremely late after listening to I think over 100 residents speak and 1
maybe four plus hours of testimony. And I think the conclusion we came to, was that we 2
couldn’t have a robust discussion and that we ought to postpone that till we had more energy. 3
It’s 7:30 and we made a motion to continue it to today knowing I think full well that Vice Chair 4
Roohparvar wasn’t going to be there and Commissioner Riggs was likely not going to attend. 5
6
I want to remind everyone on this Commission and I’ve been on this Commission almost 9-7
years now. And the requirement that quorum exist… the quorum requirement is… its… the idea 8
here is that the business of the City, the applicants and the citizens of our community deserve 9
for the business of the City to move forward. And the quorum requirement is there so that we 10
operate anytime we satisfy that requirement. And so, it would be a mistake for us to for 11
example operate only when we have all of our Commissioners present because that would 12
suggest that the quorum requirement was in fact not four, that it was seven if the issue is of 13
importance. 14
15
I think in this particular case Vice Chair Roohparvar’s comments would be more appropriate if 16
they were received after tonight’s meeting as a reflection of the thought process that she had. 17
So, I would anticipate that Commissioner’s comments from Riggs and Roohparvar if they were 18
going to send any, would come between this meeting and the next one. 19
20
And then I want to also just suggest to you that this is not the meeting at which we are likely to 21
make a motion on the item agendized. It’s the meeting where we indicate to Staff how to 22
develop the language and the Conditions that would hopefully achieve the support of a 23
majority of us at a follow-up meeting. And I imagine that there would be an opportunity to 24
comment at that meeting because there would be essentially a product that individuals could 25
weigh in on. 26
27
But I think it would be a little… and then I just want to add that the idea that we had last 28
meeting was that we would do a short round of questions. And I want to also acknowledge that 29
the Commissioners who asked questions, largely asked Staff to clarify questions that they had 30
heard that evening from individuals in the community who had come to provide testimony. So, 31
I feel like the idea that the Packet has a lot of new information is a little confusing because the 32
alternative would have been that we spent a lot of time that evening deliberating and Staff 33
would have been like let me look that up and I’ll get back to you. And they would have come 34
back later in the evening and said ok, well here’s what we… here’s how we interrupted this 35
section of the code. And the extent to which one would have been able to incorporate all of 36
that material at that late hour strikes me as less likely than the day that we had today to spend 37
with that information. 38
39
2.c
Packet Pg. 50
Page 7
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
So, I guess my last comment on that topic would be we have more than a quorum here. This 1
process has gone on for way, way too long and I think we have a duty here to do the business of 2
the City and… hold on a second. And so, I’d very much like to proceed and I guess before I jump 3
into some of the thoughts I have I’d get… it might be prudent to just make sure that there’s 4
support for continuing here and having this conversation. And again, we are at the end of this 5
discussion which I think we can do. We will have given Staff some idea of what to bring back to 6
us in the form of a… of language and conditions that we can potentially move forward in the 7
process. So, maybe before I go in for my whole review of this we should just shore up whether 8
we have the support to continue tonight because I would hate to talk for 5 or 6 or 7 more 9
minutes about the EIR and about Conditions for Approval if no one is going to digest it. 10
11
Chair Templeton: I think that’s fair. Let’s go ahead and do a check-in. Thank you both 12
Commissioner Summa and Commissioner Alcheck for speaking to this part of our process. 13
Commissioner Lauing and Commissioner Hechtman, can you weigh in on your thoughts on this 14
topic. We will definitely do another round if we decide to proceed where you can share your 15
comments. 16
17
Commissioner Lauing: Yes, so my understanding, although it wasn’t spelled out in the agenda 18
that came to us, my understanding is that these answers were prepared as kind of a worksheet 19
for tonight. So, that we’re now seeing the answers we asked 2-weeks ago and that the first item 20
would be to go over these answers with seven of us here and now five. So, that’s not going to 21
take 5-minutes, but I think that’s the place to start because that’s why we asked the questions 22
is to get the information. So, it seems to me like that’s the first step that we have to go through 23
tonight under any circumstances to my knowledge… I mean to my preference before we even 24
considered a continuation. 25
26
The second thing I would say however is that the two documents filed by the lawyers are really 27
substantive legal documents representing both sides. And I don’t think it’s fair to either side of 28
the issue or to the public not to allow public comment on those substantive documents. Now, 29
that could happen in the next meeting or it could happen now, but I think it should be allowed 30
to happen and our counsel last meeting said that that can happen at the Chair’s discretion or at 31
the vote of the PTC. So, what I would be asking for in that regard is to at least allow comments 32
on those new legal documents at some point for the public. So, procedurally that’s how I think 33
we are proceeding and should proceed. Thanks. 34
35
Chair Templeton: Thank you so much. Commissioner Hechtman. 36
37
Commissioner Hechtman: So, I think we’re just talking about the process on whether we want 38
to continue. 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 51
Page 8
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Templeton: Yeah and we’re checking in, in continue or comment. 1
2
Commissioner Hechtman: Ok so I agree with a lot of what Commissioner Alcheck said in terms 3
of our function here at the PTC and our job to move things forward. And if tonight we were at 4
that place where we were going to vote on our recommendations to the Council on the 5
Findings that Staff had already prepared at our direction, then I would say absolutely we need 6
to go forward and it’s just a shame that two of the Commissioners aren’t here. But it’s really… 7
we’re really kind of in a unique situation tonight I think. And I can go either way on this 8
continuance item, but what I don’t want to do is kind of put one toe in. I mean my thinking is 9
that we have two Commissioners who are not here tonight. Both of them participated in the 10
hearings last September when the first… when the Draft EIR was here. Both of them have 11
insights that would be useful in this process and particularly because our goal tonight would be 12
to give Staff direction on the Findings, to come back to us for our review, and tweaking and 13
hopefully making a recommendation. But we’re missing two of the Commissioners who would 14
want to weigh in on that. So, the reality is five of us can give that kind of direction but when we 15
come back the chances are great that we will not have captured the direction that Vice-Chair 16
Roohparvar and Commissioner Riggs want. And so then they’re going to provide at the next 17
hearing their direction and Staff’s going to have to go away again and I… to me that’s a little 18
inefficient. Again, if the majority of us want to do it, I’ll abide by it, but for me, that is the 19
reason we might want to continue, understanding that there’s a risk that one or more of us 20
may not show up and we could be in the same bind on September 30th or October 14th. 21
22
I don’t much know if we are going to continue why we would want to have Staff walk us 23
through their memo tonight? That… and maybe Commissioner Lauing can explain that better. I 24
mean it’s thorough, it’s detailed, it is answering questions we asked before and I do agree that 25
it’s not new information in the sense that it requires additional public weigh-in. It is akin to 26
them rooting through the material and answering those questions in the wee hours last time 27
which would not have triggered a round… another round of public comment. So, like I said I 28
could support a continuance if that’s the will of the group or I’m… and I’m also ready to move 29
forward with substantive comments on the EIR and the land use issues. And incidentally, if we 30
do that I’m ready to suggest maybe a timing process for doing those things in terms of rounds 31
of comments. 32
33
Chair Templeton: Alright, we’ll get back on that. Are these new hands up? It looks like 34
Commissioner Summa might be next on deck if Commissioner Lauing and Commissioner 35
Hechtman have not put their hands down yet. Commissioner Summa. 36
37
Commissioner Summa: Well thank you Chair. We could also hear from you. You could also 38
weigh in on this before I speak again. 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 52
Page 9
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Templeton: Yes, of course. I think that it’s entirely possible to do a round of feedback and 1
interaction with the document that Staff provided and still be able to continue to next week. I 2
think that’s entirely possible to do and may make our discussion, or not next week but next 3
time, more efficient. We… I do recognize we have a lot of interest in this particular project and 4
there’s a potential for a lot of questions. So, we have this opportunity in front of us, it’s not that 5
late, if we wanted to do a round of questions and interaction with the responses that would be 6
fine with me. And then we can see if we’re ready to do something or ready to continue at that 7
time. 8
9
MOTION #1 10
11
Commissioner Summa: Ok. I’m going to go ahead and make a motion. And I don’t disagree with 12
anything that my colleagues have said and my colleague Commissioner Alcheck spoke to getting 13
the City’s business done. I agree with that entirely. That’s why I’ve only missed Planning 14
Commission once I believe in 3 ½… over 3 1/2 -years but I think we can all… we can do that just 15
as well on the 30th, and alleviate many of the concerns that I feel the public might have about 16
the lack of transparency about people who might have been unable to speak at the meeting the 17
first time. Quite often when meetings are continued the only people that are prevented from 18
speaking in oral comments are people who had already spoken. So, it can kind of go either way 19
and there’s a lot of flexibility but given the late submissions from the applicant and the Staff 20
and others. I think it would serve the end product and the process better to continue this at our 21
next meeting and give everybody a chance to absorb the information. So, that is my motion. 22
23
Chair Templeton: Alright, is there a second? Ok, Commissioner Lauing seconds. Does he need to 24
do that on the recording? 25
26
Ms. Tanner: If he can say it for the record that would be (interrupted) 27
28
SECOND 29
30
Commissioner Lauing: I’ll second it and I have some comments. 31
32
Chair Templeton: Ok, would you like to speak to your second? 33
34
Commissioner Lauing: Yes. The reason I think that this might be prudent is that… and I’ll be 35
indirectly or directly responding to Commissioner Hechtman’s questions. The Packet of 36
questions here is 30 some questions on 25 Pages. From 3 ½-years of experience, I don’t think 37
that just processing these at home and coming back and being ready is the optimal way to do it 38
because all of us are going to have questions about the questions. And it would be beneficial for 39
2.c
Packet Pg. 53
Page 10
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
at least five of us to listen to that, which doesn’t mean it has to take hours, but I do think that 1
tonight we should just zip through those and see if it resolves everything. 2
3
Chair Templeton: Is that the motion that Commissioner Summa made though? I believe she’s 4
making a motion to continue. 5
6
Commissioner Summa: Yeah, sorry, my intention was to make a motion for the reasons stated. 7
To continue this to our next meeting so that we would have time and the public would have 8
time and Staff would have time to deal with the last-minute submissions; one of which we were 9
emailed. That being the submission by the member of the applicant team, the attorney, last 10
night at 8 o’clock and the second the Staff’s memo which we received at 2 o’clock by email 11
today. So, I think everyone would be better served by continuing this meeting to our next 12
meeting with the hope (interrupted) 13
14
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 15
16
Commissioner Lauing: Let me, let me try a friendly amendment to see if this in line with that 17
you’re saying. So, I would like to have the amendment be that public comment on those two 18
documents be had and that can be had tonight but I think it would be better and more 19
productive to the next meeting. But I think it would be productive tonight to only go over these 20
answers to the questions and not to go beyond that before we continue the rest of it. That’s 21
what I was expecting was in your motion because there’s benefit to working through these 40 22
questions tonight to see if people are satisfied and they can move on from there. 23
24
Commissioner Summa: If that makes my motion more palatable to you and it would be 25
unpalatable otherwise, I can accept it. 26
27
Commissioner Lauing: I just think it’s more productive so yeah, I’d like to have that in there. 28
29
Commissioner Summa: So, you wouldn’t want to give any direct impact… I mean I think if we 30
discuss these questions in the memo with Staff it will end up giving them a lot of feeling about 31
where we’re going with making… being able to make Findings. But you wouldn’t want to 32
specifically touch on the Findings? Just go over the memo? 33
34
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. I just want to have the benefit of five people having opinions on 35
the answers and see if we agree on the answers. So, I’m not suggesting that they go anywhere 36
beyond the answers to those questions before we continue it. 37
38
Commissioner Summa: Ok. If that makes it more acceptable to you and it might make it more 39
acceptable to my colleagues. It sounds a little odd because I’ll tell you and maybe Albert… Mr. 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 54
Page 11
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Yang can weigh in on this. It’s not the way the meeting was advertised so I don’t even know if 1
that’s actually legal. I would have thought that the meeting would have to… meeting 2
description, the meeting title, would have to have said that in the 72-hour Brown Act period. 3
So, we might be exchanging what I consider… what I’m concerned is one violation of the Brown 4
Act which is not circulating significant materials within 72-hours… I mean before 72-hours. And 5
we would be trading then a different violation with regards with the expectations the public 6
may have had about what we were doing here tonight. If that makes it any clearer. 7
8
Chair Templeton: May I interject and ask Mr. Yang to speak to those comments, those claims. 9
10
Mr. Yang: Sure. We don’t… I’m not concerned about a Brown Act issue here. The agenda item 11
was advertised as action on these applications and discussion of Staff’s answers to the 12
Commissioner’s questions is a subset of what was advertised. 13
14
Chair Templeton: Thank you. 15
16
Commissioner Summa: Are you… oh, I’m sorry. I was going to ask our attorney if he’s concerned 17
that the 72-hour notice period was not met by these significant item… additional submissions 18
and Staff Report not coming out early enough? Because on came out… one was given… 19
circulated last night and I think only to the public this morning and the other was circulated 20
even to us only this afternoon. Staff didn’t… so that seems like a Brown Act violation to me. 21
22
Mr. Yang: So, the Brown Act simply requires that items are provided to the public at the same 23
time that they’re provided to member of the legislative body. That’s what Staff endeavored to 24
do. Make these materials available to the public as soon they were available to us and available 25
to the Commission. 26
27
Commissioner Summa: So, there’s no 72-hour requirement in the Brown Act? 28
29
Mr. Yang: There is a 72-hour requirement for agendas to be posted but that’s a description of 30
what’s going to be discussed on the evening. 31
32
Commissioner Summa: The materials discussed are not supposed to be posted? I’m really 33
confused because (interrupted) 34
35
Mr. Yang: The requirement under the Brown Act is that materials that are available to the 36
Commission are available to the public at the same time or possible at the same time. 37
38
Ms. Tanner: I hope Commissioner Summa perhaps thinks of it as Staff having a PowerPoint 39
presentation that we don’t share necessarily always ahead of time and we present that 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 55
Page 12
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
presentation orally at the meeting. But that’s not a violation of the Brown Act to provide that 1
information at the same time that it’s provided to the Commission. It’s provided to the public, 2
but that meeting is properly noticed 72-hours ahead of time in terms of the agenda. And the 3
agenda item sufficiently covers what is to be discussed in that discussion. 4
5
Chair Templeton: Ok. Do you have more questions Commissioner Summa before we continue? 6
It looks like Commissioner Alcheck also has his hand up. 7
8
Commissioner Summa: I’ll stop for now, thank you. 9
10
Chair Templeton: Thank you. Commissioner Alcheck did you want to speak to this motion? 11
12
Commissioner Alcheck: Look, I am extremely frustrated with this conversation and I appreciate 13
that we have a Commissioner that is relatively new, but this is nonsense. If this process… it’s 14
nonsense. It’s not a Brown Act violation. The… I think our attorney is being exceptionally clear. 15
Having comments from attorneys from both sides are essentially like rebuttal comments that 16
have been submitted just as any other writing… it’s not substantial new information. I’m… this 17
is… the letters from the attorneys are the equivalent of them running out of time during our 3-18
minute limitation on them and then adding more color in the weeks that follow. And we closed 19
that hearing because everyone that showed up got to speak and if you had more to say, which 20
we said multiple times in the meeting, you can send your comments via email to us. And I just… 21
to me this is advocacy because… and if this project operated in some sort of unique bubble I 22
would say, ok you know what, benefit of the doubt. But there seems to be a real reluctance to 23
do the work that we came here to do. I would be shocked if you didn’t already have notes for 24
the meeting we have 2-weeks. That you came to that meeting prepared to talk about. Maybe 25
under the assumption that no one would show up to talk. So, if you aren’t prepared 2-weeks 26
ago to have a conversation about everything in this EIR and this whole agendized topic. Then 27
what I’m supposed to assume then in 2-more weeks we will be and I’m sorry the notion that we 28
could all be present in 2-weeks. That’s not the way that this is supposed to operate. We were 29
barely capable of finding an alternative date where we could all meet, there’s clearly an 30
indication that one of our Commissioners has an ongoing conflict with Wednesday evenings 31
which is in and of itself a problem for that Commissioner, and I think that we need to… there’s… 32
I’m virtually positive that each one of us has notes on this item. We’ve been grappling with this 33
EIR for more than month. Remember when it was published? We had opportunities to meet 34
and discuss with representatives in the community. We have comments and it’s not… this is 35
clearly a sensitive issue for the public and I recognize that depending on how this goes there 36
will be preserved winners and losers. But that’s not a reason to just put… we have four 37
meetings left. We have four meetings left this year. 38
39
2.c
Packet Pg. 56
Page 13
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
And I’ll just respond to one comment Commissioner Hechtman, which is it would be entirely 1
inappropriate for the two Commissioners who aren’t present tonight to simply show up at our 2
next meeting and provide alternative guidance. It would be far more appropriate for them, if 3
they were going to provide alternative comments, to listen to this meeting after tonight, and 4
then provide their comments in writing which would be made immediately available to the 5
public. So that those comments could be incorporated very shortly after this meeting takes 6
place into the collective response from Staff. 7
8
So, again, I think… I am… someone said that everyone would be well served if we delayed. I 9
completely disagree with that. No one is well served by the continued delay of this project and 10
the delay of discussion. And the only benefit in my opinion… and maybe I’m being cynical right 11
now, but this is a political season and maybe there’s an instinct to not get too muddled into it 12
but we have to operate apolitically here. We have to put our zoning cap hat, we have to put our 13
planning cap on and we have to say what does our Comprehensive Plan say about this? What… 14
how… what is Staff saying about this? We can’t argue about facts. There’s this notion that we 15
have to… we’re going to go through this thing and say well, how do we feel about their 16
comments? Either we accept that Staff has been interpreting basements in R1 this way or you 17
take the position that it doesn’t which would be contradictory to the legal information our… we 18
owe it to ourselves to have (interrupted) 19
20
Chair Templeton: Commissioner Alcheck? 21
22
Commissioner Alcheck: This conversation and I’m very frustrated by this notion that we’re 23
going to put it off or that we need to wait for two more Commissioners who may not even be at 24
the next one and this idea that there aren’t… we don’t already have notes. Everyone should 25
have notes already on this from 2-weeks ago that we’ve been dying to talk about. 26
27
Chair Templeton: Thank you for speaking to your position. In the interest of either getting to 28
our comments or not, I’m wondering if we should take our vote? It looks like Commissioner 29
Summa has another response. If you could keep it short that would be great, thank you. 30
31
Commissioner Summa: Yeah, I’m sorry, I just don’t think we should make things personal 32
between us. I’m not acting in a political way or as an advocate for either side of the project. And 33
I do think Staff’s answers to my question confirm that all the materials that we are discussing 34
tonight should have been made public at the same time. 35
36
Commissioner Alcheck: They were made public. They were made public as soon as we got 37
them. 38
39
Chair Templeton: Alright, can (interrupted) 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 57
Page 14
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 DENIED 2
MOTION RESTATED 3
4
Commissioner Summa: That was my intention and I don’t think it’s appropriate for other 5
Commissioners to speculate about my motives or nonexistence advocacy. So, I stand by saying 6
that I think… I will restate my motion because I do not wish to… I think it’s too complicated to 7
accept the seconder’s motion. And so, my idea of continuing this to our next meeting with no 8
intention of delaying anything but so that everyone has time to absorb the two late 9
submissions that came last night and tonight. 10
11
Chair Templeton: Alright, thank you. Commissioner Lauing do you still second it with no 12
discussion? Continuance with no discussion is the motion. 13
14
SECOND WITHDRAWN 15
16
Commissioner Lauing: No. 17
18
MOTION #1 DIES DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND 19
20
Chair Templeton: Is there a second? Hearing none the motion fails. I’m sorry Commissioner 21
Summa. I do want to encourage the Commissioners just to reflect what Commissioner Summa 22
said. Let’s focus on the subject matter and not on individuals if at all possible. I think that would 23
help us conduct a better conversation. So, Commissioner Lauing did you want to make a 24
different motion, or do you want to go into discussion and then discuss continuance at another 25
time? 26
27
Commissioner Lauing: No, I don’t have another motion. I was just saying in my original 28
comments that I thought we were going to do that anyway and I wanted to be productive. So, 29
that’s why I thought we should go forward with it. 30
31
Chair Templeton: Yes, and if at the end of our discussion we feel that we need to continue that 32
is always a possibility at that time. So now please raise your hands… oh, we were going to 33
discuss how much time. I assume that everybody does have prepared notes and has things they 34
want to speak too. I would say for the first round would everybody be comfortable with like a 35
goal of 5-minutes or 10-minutes? Do you have opinions on that? Commissioner Hechtman. 36
37
Commissioner Hechtman: I think first-round 10-minutes and then a follow up round. 38
39
2.c
Packet Pg. 58
Page 15
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Templeton: Alright, any thoughts on that? Does that sound good? It’s going to be self-1
control as far as those 10-minutes but the goal here would be to make sure that everybody has 2
a chance to ask questions. And then of course, for any remaining that weren’t addressed in 3
your first segment, we’ll go around again if needed until all of our comments are heard. Does 4
that sound reasonable? Alright so the (interrupted) 5
6
Commissioner Lauing: First a procedural (interrupted) 7
8
Chair Templeton: Oh, yes? 9
10
Commissioner Lauing: Just procedural question, so does that mean that you’ve decided that 11
we’re not going to go over the questions? That we’re just going to take random comments that 12
Commissioners have? 13
14
Chair Templeton: So yes, I was just speaking to this. The intention is that we continued the 15
previous meeting where we heard all the public comments. And now we would proceed as 16
though we were asking our questions then but instead of being late, late at night it’s only 8 17
o’clock. So, it’s up to you what you want to discuss. I assume that because we all had those 18
questions, we’re very likely to start with those questions. That would be my guess but how you 19
want to spend your time is your choice. Alright Commissioner Lauing, then Commissioner 20
Hechtman. Please proceed. 21
22
Commissioner Lauing: No, sorry, that was on from before. Someone else can go. 23
24
Chair Templeton: Ok, that sounds good. Commissioner Hechtman? 25
26
Commissioner Hechtman: I guess I was… we’re moving forward which is great, but I was under 27
the impression after the short presentation that Ms. French made that if we were going 28
forward there might be a supplemental presentation that was intended by Staff, which I think 29
would serve at least part of Commissioner Lauing’s desire. Did I understand that right from 30
Staff? 31
32
Ms. Tanner: Our… yes, Commissioner Hechtman, as you all know there are many questions, I 33
believe 28, that we were able to… sometimes you can consolidate questions together. And so, 34
our preference would be if there are specific questions that Commissioners are interested in 35
discussing that we can go there. We have slides by the number of the question so we can have 36
some presentation. It would be quite a lengthy presentation if we did go over each question. 37
And so, some may have been satisfied and so we don’t need to go over but if Commissioners do 38
have questions let’s say, I would like to Staff to talk about Question One. We can queue that up 39
right away and talk about Question One during your time. And then I think as Chair Templeton 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 59
Page 16
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
said then maybe in the second round you might provide more opinion let’s say if you use your 1
first round for questions or something like that and we have that dialog. The goal was to focus 2
on the questions Commissioners want to talk about instead of maybe all the questions if oral 3
dialog is not necessary. 4
5
Chair Templeton: Commissioners if in response you want to ask for something different, there’s 6
material ready for us so it’s up to you. Who was up? Commissioner Hechtman, did you want to 7
continue or? 8
9
Commissioner Hechtman: Well I mean I can. I can wade into my comments but my comments 10
don’t involve really following up on those questions. I did have an opportunity this afternoon to 11
briefly look at them, including the ones that I had asked which members of the public had 12
asked. So… and it seems that they’re addressed there, but unless somebody wants to start with 13
that I’m… I could just kind of wade into my comments on the EIR. 14
15
Chair Templeton: Yeah, you’re up and other people can go back to the questions if they choose. 16
17
Commissioner Hechtman: Ok so let me get set up here. Hold on one second. Alright so this is an 18
extraordinarily complicated matter and so I did have to take the time work through and try to 19
organize my thoughts so I could present them coherently, and hopefully in 10-minutes. 20
21
So, we’re tasked by Staff with making recommendations regarding the EIR and land-use 22
decisions that will be presented to City Council. And I think it’s important for us in this 23
deliberation to distinguish between those two. And I’m going to try to in my comments, starting 24
with the EIR because I feel like there’s some misperceptions among the public about its 25
function and some… really some bleed-over of land use issues into the function of the EIR. 26
27
So, the EIRis an informational document. Its purpose is to ensure that our decisions about a 28
project are made with the full understanding of their environmental impacts. It’s required to 29
include a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, including a no project alternative. 30
Now, these alternatives are not required to be described in the same level of detail as the 31
project, rather they just have to be described in sufficient detail to allow meaningful 32
comparison to the project that’s being advocated by the project applicant. 33
34
So, and here’s an aspect of CEQA that I think the public frequently misunderstands, CEQA 35
doesn’t require the decision-makers to approve the version of the project with the fewest 36
environmental impacts. If it did, no substantial development would ever be approved because 37
the required no project alternative always causes the fewest change to the environment and 38
that is what an EIR measures. It’s changes to the environment and I think that’s particularly 39
important to remember that regarding this CUP application by Castilleja. 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 60
Page 17
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Some of the comments that I’ve heard and read seem to suggest that we need to look at this 2
project as though it involved a vacant 6-acre parcel where we’re deciding between using it as a 3
school versus using it for homes and that’s not what CEQA requires to be studied. CEQA… 4
Castilleja is an existing school, it has existing traffic, noise, and those existing conditions are the 5
baseline for the CEQA analysis. And the focus of the EIR is whether the expansion project 6
significantly increases those environmental impacts and if so, can those increases be reduced 7
using mitigation measures to the point where the increases are considered insignificant. So 8
Castilleja has stated they want to pursue Project Alternative Number Four, the reduced 9
underground garage alternative and the Final EIR concludes that the Alternative Number Four, 10
with its mitigations, will not result in any new significant environmental effects. 11
12
I do a lot of work on… with CEQA and with EIRs and based on my experience this Final EIR is 13
extraordinary in the detail of its analysis about what really boils down to an existing school that 14
wants to increase its underground footprint and increase enrollment by 30 percent without a 15
significant increase in traffic. I think this Final EIR satisfies every CEQA requirement and far 16
exceeds many of them which I take as a testament to our Staff listening to the community and 17
ensuring that the areas of concerns that they’ve expressed were discussed and analyzed in the 18
FEIR. 19
20
And I believe that the PTC should ultimately recommend to the City Council that it certify the 21
FEIR as complying with CEQA, which is not to say that there are not significant land use issues 22
for us to wrestle with tonight and next time. And I’ll get to those but first I want to look at some 23
of the key analyses in the FEIR and explain briefly why I think they satisfy CEQA. 24
25
First, on traffic, school traffic to start with. Here is required by CEQA the existing school traffic is 26
the baseline for determining if the project will cause a significant increase. Mitigation Measure 27
7A requires the school to reduce the daily trip per student rate from 2.7 to 2.4, limit am peak 28
traffic to an average of 440 trips and prevent any queuing on public streets. There’s a four-29
phased approach to enforcing these requirements with strong penalties if they’re not met, 30
including a 10 percent reduction in enrollment. As to construction traffic, as noted in the FEIR, 31
Palo Alto has a standard set of Conditions of Approval addressing construction impacts 32
including the requirement of a Construction Management Plan. This is the approach taken 33
throughout the state, including for projects larger than this one. Now that plan requirement 34
could repetitively be added to as a mitigation measure, but I don’t think the EIR is defective 35
without it. 36
37
Turning to noise, school noise; the noise coming from the current existing school is the 38
baseline. The potential noise impacts of the new pool seem to be the primary potential new 39
noise generator. And those are addressed in part by the design of the pool and in part by 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 61
Page 18
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mitigation Measure 8A regarding the loudspeaker. As to construction noise, this is addressed in 1
Mitigation Measure 8B involving equipment selection, temporary noise barriers to stay within 2
stated noise limits which in my experience is the standard way construction noise mitigation 3
noise is handled under CEQA. 4
5
Aesthetics, we leave that to the ARB. 6
7
In consistency with Land Use Regulations, the point I want to make here is that the school both 8
is an existing use and an allowed use in this zone with a CUP; which is what they currently have 9
and what they’re applying for. Since there’s no significant… since there’s no change in use there 10
cannot be a significant impact regarding consistency with Land Use Regulations. While there 11
may be significant land use issues to discuss, those issues I believe are not CEQA issues. 12
13
Project alternatives, reduced garage Alternative Number Four. I think that this alternative, 14
which is the version of the project that Castilleja is now pursuing, is described in adequate 15
detail, and fully analyzed for all impacts thoroughly in the FEIR. On the no underground garage 16
alternative, this new analysis is 10 pages long, which is actually longer than the analysis of 17
Alternative Number Four. I think it’s remarkably detailed for a CEQA project alternative and 18
remember all that’s required is to describe it in sufficient detail to allow a meaningful 19
comparison. I think it does that. Now, I know a couple of my fellow Commissioners voiced 20
dissatisfaction with this alternative at our last meeting, but CEQA is very clear that an 21
alternative is not deficient for not considering every permutation of that alternative. If we want 22
to talk about a vision of Castilleja that has parking at grade without removing the two homes on 23
Emerson and with more reliance on shuttles, that discussion should be had in the land use 24
context related to our ability to be making the Findings, and not as a criticism of the FEIR. The 25
school relocation alternative was rejected as not meeting the project goals. I know a number of 26
neighbors were disappointed by that, but Castilleja is legally existing at this location. I don’t 27
believe the City has any ability to compel the school to move and I think it’s unrealistic to think 28
that they might voluntarily do that. But for the proponents for this alternative, many of whom 29
also raised concerns about the construction, I’d say thinking alternatively you really should be 30
careful what you wish for because if the school did move and leave behind this 6-acre 31
residential site, given our housing shortage, there’s going to be great pressure on the Council to 32
rezone it to provide more dense housing than the 10,000-square foot lots that predominate in 33
this area. And even if that resulted in just 6,000-square foot lots which is like my neighborhood 34
and lots of others in Palo Alto, that means in round numbers, at least 40 homes, 3,000-square 35
feet each. That’s 120,000-square feet of above-ground buildings, same as the school is 36
proposing, plus ADUs plus basements. So, we really don’t avoid any of the construction impacts 37
but ultimately depending upon the density, which I think could be even denser than I’m 38
suggesting, The traffic impacts could theoretically be reduced. 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 62
Page 19
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
So, in summary I think the FEIR does meet the requirements of CEQA, and trying to pick at it 1
doesn’t change that, but it does distract us from the land use issues and Findings that I think 2
should really be our focus. 3
4
And so, with the remaining time, I want to talk about a few of the land use and Findings issues 5
that I see. And as an overview, I want to say that I believe that Castilleja is an asset to our City 6
that needs to be supported and retained. A number of the neighbors asserted that a substantial 7
percentage of their students come from other cities, but from my perspective, that misses the 8
point. The benefit of having Castilleja here is that our Palo Alto residents don’t have to drive 9
their daughters to some other City to get a private school education that no one disputes is 10
world-class. 11
12
Over the coming decade, Palo Alto is going to grow and become more dense. Office space is 13
going to be more dense, residential is going to be more dense, commercial is going to be more 14
dense. Castilleja needs to grow too, and I don’t find anything in our code quantitatively 15
precluding their growth. And I don’t see any Finding frankly that can’t be made if and this is the 16
big if, in my view, we adequately address any increase in traffic associated with that growth. I 17
did want to mention on this point that data has been presented about the average number of 18
students and that’s… I find that statistically interesting, but not really relevant to our Finding 19
because our code doesn’t set a standard for students per acre or require students to have… 20
schools to have the same density just as it doesn’t prevent my neighbor from building a 3,000-21
square foot house because the other homes in the neighborhood average 2,000-square feet. 22
For frame of reference, the law school I attended in San Francisco had 1,500 students in two-23
four or 5 story buildings on 2 acres of land. I think that’s about 30 times the density Castilleja is 24
seeking to grow too. 25
26
Now counterbalancing that need to support and retain Castilleja is their history of violation of 27
the enrollment cap. They paid a monetary penalty for that but more importantly, they lost the 28
trust of the neighbors. The trust that they would play by the rules and rightfully so. To my 29
thinking, this plays out in the City’s enforcement of Conditions of Approval for whatever form of 30
project the City Council approves. Castilleja needs to recognize that it is wholly their 31
responsibility to adhere strictly to every Condition of Approval, that their neighbors will 32
scrutinize their compliance, and if they violate a condition they should not expect soft 33
treatment from the City. Remember the City’s legal remedies include revocation of the CUP. 34
35
On retaining the portables, I know this is a concern to the neighbors, but I don’t think it’s 36
realistically a problem. The portables are going to fill the athletic field where important 37
elements of education occur. I think Castilleja will move those portables out as soon they can 38
move into the new building, but we could include a condition requiring the portables to be 39
2.c
Packet Pg. 63
Page 20
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
moved at an appropriate milestone, and I’d like the Staff to investigate and recommend that 1
milestone. I think this dove-tails with some comments I saw in the Staff At Place Memo. 2
3
The Variance for rebuilding… for rebuilt square footage and I’m getting close to being done. 4
This I think is a really interesting issue. At best, it seems to me there are codes that strongly 5
encourage the proposed modernization in all sorts of ways and you shouldn’t have to lose 6
functionality or capacity to accomplish those desirable goals. Back in 2018, there was a well-7
articulated explanation of how the Variance Findings can be made by the project’s attorney and 8
a well-articulated explanation of why the Findings can’t be made from the neighbor’s attorney. 9
Then there was a brief responding letter from Castilleja’s counsel that said a more detailed 10
response would be forthcoming, but I couldn’t find that more detailed response in the record. 11
And I like to know from Staff if we ever received that follow up letter specifically on the 12
Variance issue. 13
14
Number of events, like the operation of the school itself I don’t see any issue regarding the 15
school holding these events in the requested quantity so long as the event-related traffic is 16
handled. And I believe that the detailed Conditions of Approval regulating when they can be 17
held and how the traffic is to be managed for different size events is a reasonable starting place 18
and we can adjust the conditions if they prove ineffective in any way. 19
20
And the last thing I wanted to take up briefly is the potential effects on the Bryant Street Bike 21
Boulevard and I really need a better understanding of this issue which I’m hoping Staff can 22
provide. So, I think a substantial portion of the existing school traffic uses Bryant Street 23
according to the traffic reports for the project and I can’t tell if the traffic circulation proposed 24
with Alternative Number Four puts more traffic on Bryant or less or keeps it the same. I do 25
know that the garage is designed to avoid queuing that could extent onto Bryant and I haven’t 26
seen any evidence that the design isn’t effective and won’t accomplish that. 27
28
So that’s what I wanted to say in my initial round of comments on where we are. And I was 29
hoping that in round two actually, we could, depending upon how the other Commissioners 30
approach this, we can really dialog the Land Use Findings and see where we’re having difficulty 31
and see where we’re not. So, thank you for listening. 32
33
Chair Templeton: I appreciate that. Pretty good self-regulation there on the timing. 34
Commissioner Alcheck and if you’d like to after him you can raise your hand. Oh, it looks like 35
Ms. Tanner has a comment first. If you could hold off Commissioner Alcheck. 36
37
Ms. Tanner: I’m just wondering Chair Templeton if you wanted Staff to respond to the question 38
about the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard and go into that (interrupted) 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 64
Page 21
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Templeton: Yes. 1
2
Ms. Tanner: Response? 3
4
Chair Templeton: Yes, please. 5
6
Ms. Tanner: Ok, great. Amy and we also have transportation Staff available as well. If we want 7
to queue up the question regarding Bryant Street Bike Boulevard we can provide that response. 8
9
Ms. French: Sure. I do have some slides that I can pull up. We have Katherine Waugh from 10
Dudek as well as Kenny Jeong from W-Trans. So, I don’t know if they have slides to use for this 11
but I’m certainly able to bring those up. Indeed, the existing traffic on Bryant is of course most 12
of the traffic. The project added… the Original Project added traffic but some of… a lot of that 13
was diverted into the garage as that Original Project put all drop off trips in the garage. The 14
Project Alternative Number Four, Disbursed Alternative, does add traffic to the Bryant Street 15
but it is less than a certain threshold regarding bicycle safety. I think in the Staff Report there 16
was some discussion. I can find what Packet Page if that would help and meanwhile I can look 17
up the slides and bring those up. 18
19
Ms. Katherine Waugh, Consultant: Amy? I’ll chime in. Hi Commissioners, this is Katherine 20
Waugh at Dudek, Senior Project Manager, and we’re the City’s environmental consultant for 21
the project. So, under the Project Alternative and I don’t have the numbers in front of me like 22
Amy, there would be slightly… so the disbursed circulation alternative, there would be a slight 23
increase in the amount of traffic on Bryant Street. The average daily total volume of traffic but 24
that traffic volume would remain well below the 2,000 trips per day that are considered the 25
City’s standard in terms of where it’s appropriate to designate a bike route. And so, the traffic 26
volume would remain well below that amount that is considered safe for designating a bicycle 27
route or a bicycle boulevard. 28
29
Ms. Tanner: If that satisfies the Commissioner’s question we can continue or we can bring up 30
the visuals if that more detail is desired. 31
32
Commissioner Hechtman: I think that satisfies the question. Thank you. 33
34
Chair Templeton: Thank you very much. Alright, Commissioner Alcheck. 35
36
Commissioner Alcheck: Before I jump, does Staff want to… is there… I’d be interested to know 37
if Staff wanted to respond to the potential legal… the response that legal counsel for the 38
applicant may have sent in reference to the letters that were exchanged last year that 39
Commissioner Hechtman asked about? 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 65
Page 22
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Ms. Tanner: Yes, we are… we need to look into that. As Ms. French said we do have a very 2
thorough record online. We pretty much routinely turn around any correspondence to post on 3
the website. So, we’ll need to look into that and if this is following the September hearing 4
from… that we had with PTC or it’s following a different hearing? 5
6
Commissioner Alcheck: No. 7
8
Commissioner Hechtman: No this was in 2018 I find three letters. First one Castilleja attorney, 9
second one the PNQL attorney, and then a short follow up from the Castilleja attorney 10
promising a later letter. And that was all in 2018 and looking forward in the record after that I 11
couldn’t find a follow-up letter from the Castilleja attorney. 12
13
Ms. Tanner: We can certainly look for that in our record if the Chair would like. Ms. 14
Romanowsky could also speak to that, but we may have to look back to find that specific 15
correspondence. We could do that. 16
17
Chair Templeton: I think that would be helpful, thank you. 18
19
Commissioner Alcheck: Chair Templeton, do you want to see if the applicant’s counsel wants to 20
comment on that? 21
22
Chair Templeton: It looks like hand… are they here? 23
24
Ms. Tanner: Yes, Mindie Romanowsky is a panelist and representing the applicant. 25
26
Chair Templeton: Oh. 27
28
Commissioner Alcheck: I’d be happy to wait another (interrupted) 29
30
Chair Templeton: Yeah, ok, let’s do that. I didn’t realize they were here. Thank you. 31
32
Ms. Mindie Romanowsky: Hello, can you hear me? 33
34
Ms. Tanner: Yes, we can. 35
36
Chair Templeton: Yes. 37
38
Ms. Romanowsky: Hi, this is Mindie Romanowsky. We did send a brief letter indicating that we 39
had comments to the PNQL letter sent back in 2018. So, Mr. Hechtman is right in reviewing the 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 66
Page 23
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
record and wondering if a letter was sent from us. We did send a short letter and then we 1
determined that at that point we weren’t going to send a long-winded letter going through 2
each of those cases until we got closer to the public hearing process. We wanted the EIR to 3
come out and a number of other things. So, the letter actually is written in draft form and I can 4
finalize it and send it along in the next day or two. 5
6
Really what it is, just to be clear, is a rebuttal to the PNQL letter that came in from their 7
attorney on clarifying the cases that were in that letter and reiterating the reasons why the 8
Findings for the Variance we believe are easily made. So, again, we’re happy to submit that 9
letter in the next day or two and certainly would look forward to all members of the public 10
reading it as well. 11
12
Ms. French: If I may, I did… I was online in our exhaustive list of documents and I did find one 13
from October that was from the Castilleja, from Mindie’s office to… responding to the PNQL 14
letter. So, October 9th of 2018. I don’t know if that’s getting at (interrupted) 15
16
Ms. Tanner: Yes, I think that… yeah, we have that. I think as Ms. Romanowsky said the follow up 17
to the follow up is still coming and will possibly be here 2-years later but shortly for the 18
Commission to review. 19
20
Ms. French: That letter was number 19 on the list of 2018 submittals. 21
22
Ms. Tanner: Thanks. 23
24
Commissioner Hechtman: So that answers my question. I wanted to know if I’d missed it in the 25
record so thank you. 26
27
Chair Templeton: Thank you, everybody. Alright, Commissioner Alcheck we’re ready for you 28
now. 29
30
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, thank you. So first of all, I’m really glad you went first because that 31
was an exemplary effort of being incredibly efficient and comprehensive. And I think both this 32
EIR and your comments just now have set a very high bar by which I think… look I too was very 33
impressed with the EIR and I share that perspective. This… it’s like gold level… it's like gold 34
standard work product and I imagine for better or worse we are going to compare future EIRs 35
to this one and I think the community will also expect that. 36
37
I just want to comment a little bit on the At Places Memo and some of the questions. Look, I 38
agree with the sentiment. I don’t think actually it would be a good use of time to go over each 39
question. And frankly, a lot of them I think are… I’m glad that we went through the process of 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 67
Page 24
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
seeking Staff input for these questions because I think they deserved responses but some of 1
them are a distraction, right? And I think we have to… I think this Commission would be well 2
served if we treated many of the legal interpretations provided by Staff and City Council as 3
determinative. I think… for example, I spent particular… I mean I read the At Places Memo 4
today as well, I spent a lot of time with it and I looked up each of the sections. For example, 5
when we were talking about the subterranean garage and local zoning. And the code language 6
is complicated, and you have to follow the thread to its end and then you have to double back 7
and find the next section and I think Staff… and I did that. I went one by one through some of 8
those and some of you know that I have a knack for doing that and I found it very sound. I think 9
it would probably be a disservice for us to sort of go back and forth on some of those issues. 10
Particularly because they don’t… they’d be a distraction from identifying the conclusions we 11
have about the EIR. In particular, whether we would recommend its certification and then… and 12
so I want to follow Commissioner Hechtman’s example and avoid those. I would be happy 13
though if another Commissioner wanted to delve into one to provide some input. So, I’ll reserve 14
comments on most of those questions. 15
16
I’d… so I too think that the FEIR meets the requirements of CEQA and I would also support a 17
recommendation that City Council certify it. And I think that… I don’t… you went through so 18
many and I don’t want to regurgitate. Oh, let me hit some of the high-level ones. There… one of 19
the things that I think needs more clarity is the… is just how the school… ok, let me clarify. 20
Enroll… there’s an enrollment increase request which I think is acceptable and there is also a 21
process by which if they fail to meet the specific standard that is set. They don’t receive… 22
they’re not permitted to have that enrollment increase. And so, I think what we need to do is 23
we need to go to that section and I have in my notes Condition 7… what was it… A, in terms of 24
the process by which we evaluate, and I think my suggestion… my request from Staff would be 25
to come back with a little bit more clarity. One of the… we need more clarification about how 26
the Mitigations in 7A… how the conditions apply for the mitigation in 7A. Is that… am I making 27
sense Ms. French? 28
29
Ms. French: Yes. 30
31
Ms. Tanner: Maybe read it and then see if it makes sense? You want to make sure that we 32
understand how if… how they would be able to increase their enrollment by meeting or if they 33
failed to meet the conditions? Is that (interrupted) 34
35
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah so, I’m sort of piggybacking. I agree that… with Commissioner 36
Hechtman’s sentiment that Castilleja must hold itself up to a high standard. They need to 37
operate with a tremendous amount of integrity. However, with respect to 7A, there’s a little… 38
it’s a little unclear how will they be evaluated in terms of the increases… how will their conduct 39
be evaluated and how will be enforcement of these conditions and how will the information be 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 68
Page 25
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
communicated? So, I think if there was more clarity there we could get comfortable with it. I 1
don’t think it would be productive for us to sort of from the dais come up with that. I think you 2
guys are in a far better position to do that and I think actually they would… I think they actually 3
touched upon this in their letter also which is… let me… well (interrupted) 4
5
Ms. Tanner: I think I do understand the question. That was very clear for Staff to come back 6
with [unintelligible] (interrupted) 7
8
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok good. 9
10
Ms. French: One is… I’m sorry if I may? So, you’re talking about Mitigation Measure 11
(interrupted) 12
13
Commissioner Alcheck: Yes. 14
15
Ms. French: 7A that’s in the EIR (interrupted) 16
17
Commissioner Alcheck: Yes. 18
19
Ms. French: Then on top of that going forward with the Conditional Use Permit there are 20
conditions that (interrupted) 21
22
Commissioner Alcheck: Yes. 23
24
Ms. French: That can get to a finer grain. So, if we’re talking about getting to a finer grain 25
beyond mitigations for CEQA purposes, this is what you’re bringing up for a nuanced discussion. 26
27
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I mean I think there is… so we have this remarkable premise here 28
that there won’t be an increased impact as they increase enrollment. And so, the question is, to 29
the extent that they meet that commitment, how are… how is that going to be evaluated, 30
monitored, and then ultimately, I guess stamped? And (interrupted) 31
32
Ms. Tanner: And that will be part… we can definitely come back with that and Commissioners 33
would expect to see something of that nature as part of Conditions of Approval; that we often 34
say in Public Work how that would be the teeth, right? So, if… what’s the accountability to 35
those standards? How will we know that they’ve met them or not met them and if they’re not 36
met then what happens? 37
38
Commissioner Alcheck: Right. 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 69
Page 26
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Tanner: And those would be part of those Conditions of Approval. 1
2
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah and I think largely the clarity that’s provided there and I would 3
encourage Staff to connect with Castilleja and make sure they understand the process. Because 4
I imagine they’ll also have maybe helpful input for how this can be monitored because they 5
may be just as or even more familiar with how the system will work. That… what opportunities 6
there’ll be for which days, which… what would be the schedule for example for the monitoring? 7
I think everybody anticipates that the school will be sort of under a microscope and I 8
understood from Commissioner Hechtman’s short experience with this project, right? That he’s 9
also already sensitive to the loss of trust, right? And so, what I would suggest is the more clear 10
and more robust those elements of this process are the more comfortable I think all of us will 11
be moving forward. Because like Commissioner Hechtman said, they could ultimately lead in 12
the taking back the Conditional Use Permit and so that’s a very serious situation. And my 13
impression from the applicant was that they are prepared to sort of operate under that level of 14
seriousness. 15
16
I want to respond to a comment that I think got a little traction last time and before I do that let 17
me just say Commissioner Summa, I apologize if I said something that sounded like a personal 18
attack. I rarely intend… I know that you’re a very passionate advocate for… a passionate 19
contributor and I don’t intend ever making anything personal but I… and this isn’t directed at 20
you at any way either. But last time there was some traction about this idea of a move or a 21
second location or maybe giving up the location and moving elsewhere. And to me, I want to 22
echo what Commissioner Hechtman said which is that I don’t know that I’ve ever seen CEQA… a 23
CEQA analysis requires that sort of alternative. What would… I think it would be a complete 24
waste of time, but I also think it’s not even reasonably legitimate to study what and how many 25
homes could be built on that site. And I am a very strong advocate for housing in the City but 26
being that the current CUP runs with the land, that if this entity decided to move they could… 27
they would likely sell it too… they could likely sell it to another school and that… or to another 28
owner and that they could operate a school. It seems like a poor use of time and resources and 29
that kind of goes back to how comprehensive this EIR already is. That the extent to which they 30
have exhausted so much analysis here suggests to me that we should give a little more 31
difference to that fact that that wasn’t included not only because it would meet none of their 32
goals to essentially close their campus and operate in a different location. And so why would 33
they entertain that in any way and why should we evaluate it? Why should we spend any 34
resources evaluating it? 35
36
Ok, I’ll move on. The… I agree with… I was uncomfortable when… and I think you remember 37
when it came up last week… 2-weeks ago that concept of the portables because it struck me 38
as… if fell into the category of conditions that you typically see the Building Department provide 39
related to how the site is operated during construction. Everything from the how waste and 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 70
Page 27
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
debris is trucked in and out to operating hours, Noise Ordinances and essentially to me it sort 1
of… it straddled this line of can we… potentially creating a scenario where the objective of this 2
institution, which is to teach, would be hampered if they pursued this project if for some reason 3
we limited the number of portables they could use. So, I share the view that I think that we 4
should avoid that. We should… I’m comfortable with the notion that the portables are 5
temporary. And I imagine that the… if there was a concern we could just articulate to the 6
Building Department that construction equipment and temporary construction… construction 7
infrastructure would be removed at the conclusion of the project but I imagine that’s largely 8
their intent. 9
10
I want to go… I want to talk a little bit… you know what, I made a note to talk about this per 11
acre density question. I thought that was interesting that when it came up last time too and 12
one of the interesting things that I learned in the last 2-weeks was that when you look at for 13
example Palo Alto High School’s Campus. I imagine… and they have a much bigger enrollment 14
and I don’t even know what their student per acre density is; but if you are… if you carefully 15
walk around that campus what you will notice is that there is a ton of open space. They’ve got 16
football fields and soccer fields and parking… surface parking lots and they have seven tennis 17
courts and they have basketball courts. And it strikes me as a little unfair to compare the 18
student density… the density if you will because if you were to take simply the structures that 19
are classroom as opposed to the open space. I imagine the numbers would be closer and so it 20
strikes me as a red herring; a non-issue. 21
22
And then I want to talk a little bit about the events. I think when we use the terminology events 23
without definition, that does us a disservice because I share Commissioner Hechtman’s view 24
that this is an institution that should thrive in our community. And the events that we are 25
talking about are opening night and night two of the fall play; or the spring play; or 26
parent/teacher conferences; or… I wrote down the notes. Admission’s open houses, alumni 27
events, recitals, choir performances, college counseling meetings. I understand that there are I 28
guess testing preparation meetings that take place which are actually not just open to Castilleja 29
students. They serve the community and that’s an example of an event that happens at 30
Castilleja that draws more than 50 individuals. My point here is that when we micromanage our 31
schools in this fashion… when we create these conditions and we micromanage the number of 32
events they have. We are harming the children of our community because the school becomes 33
a place for the children to interact and grow and it seems to me like that would be… that 34
counters so many of our Comprehensive Plan’s broader visions here. And I want to share with 35
you that there was an effort to reach out to some of the private schools in the surrounding 36
community. Mainly Menlo School for example and there was a question how many events do 37
you… can you guys provide the list of how many events you have a year and the response was 38
no? And the follow up was what do you mean and they were like we don’t even keep track. 39
There’s no monitoring, there’s no oversight. The community around Menlo High School has no 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 71
Page 28
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
interest in micromanaging the number of events that our students put together; whether it’s a 1
robotics fair or an art show. So, I want to caution the Commission because the result of the 2
micromanagement of the First Baptist application, which if you may remember there was a 3
request to have overlapping drop-offs of 60 students at a time and that one would be for 2-4
hours and the other one would be for this 2-hours, and so the drop-offs wouldn’t happen at the 5
same time. They didn’t… the City Council ultimately decided they didn’t want to do it and so at 6
no point could the 120 girls practice together at the facility they had been practicing together 7
for years. And if you don’t know that has caused… my understanding is that it has very much 8
handicapped the I Sing Choir. And the point I’m trying to make is when we micromanage from 9
the dais the operations of these schools I think we tread into territory that can yield results that 10
we have absolutely no idea to just how debilitating they can be. So, what I am comfortable with 11
is the fact that the school has put forward a list. It’s on Page 7 of their letter that they 12
submitted last night. It’s… they’ve committed to no events on Sundays, that the athletic 13
competitions would occur on week… only on weekdays and would be over by 8 pm and there 14
would be a maximum of 90 events with more than 50 guests each year. An example of events 15
they’ve summarized in Appendix B and they even go on to tell you that they would use… how 16
many of those events would be weekend and weekday and to what extent there… how many 17
events would be over 100 people. I just think it’s… I think that’s remarkable that they are so 18
organized. That they are capable of doing that considering that some of the other private 19
schools are not… were not able to do that. And I think if we’re going to make a baseline… if 20
we’re going to set a condition with respect to events I think we should start with that and I 21
think we should be careful not to expand on it. 22
23
And then I (interrupted) 24
25
Chair Templeton: A quick time check. You’re 18-minutes in, just (interrupted) 26
27
Commissioner Alcheck: Oh gosh, alright. 28
29
Chair Templeton: Yeah. 30
31
Commissioner Alcheck: I’ll stop. I want to… the last comment I want to make I guess before the 32
second round is that the... no, I’ll just save it, go ahead. 33
34
Chair Templeton: Ok, alright, thank you and may I suggest a 5-minute break? We’re a few hours 35
into our meeting, would that be ok? So, it’s 8:34, if we could be back at 8:48. I see a few thumbs 36
up and nods so let’s do that. Thank you. 37
38
[The Commission took a short break] 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 72
Page 29
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Templeton: It’s back on Commissioners. Alright, we’ve got four of us here. Ms. French, are 1
you back yet? 2
3
Ms. French: Yes. 4
5
Chair Templeton: Ok so we’re returning from break and I believe we’ve got at least four of the 6
Commissioners back. We’re waiting on Commissioner Lauing who may be getting his camera 7
turned back on, but would you like to start off by making some responses to comments from 8
Commissioner Alcheck? 9
10
Ms. French: Yes, I want to make sure that Katherine is back from her break. I had texted her a 11
little bit because on the… here she is… the CEQA aspects of Commissioner Alcheck’s questions 12
or discussion… line of discussion on the events. So, Katherine are you settled? 13
14
Ms. Waugh: Not quite but yes. Excuse me, Commissioners, I’ve had a really hectic couple of 15
days with personal family. An injured mother in law so, but Commissioner Alcheck was talking a 16
lot about Mitigation Measure 7A and which relates to the TDM Plan that the school has 17
proposed. And so, the mitigation measure itself includes a lot of language revolving around 18
enforcement and monitoring. So, it includes things like requiring the school to install traffic 19
monitoring devices so that they can have an accurate count of the trips that are coming in and 20
out of each driveway every day and that data can be translated or transmitted to the City. And 21
then a program of reporting and I believe… I don’t have the text right in front of me but I 22
believe that it requires reports three times per year until the school has demonstrated 23
achievement of the performance standards that are indicated in the mitigation measure. And 24
then the mitigation measure itself is based on the TDM plan that the school has proposed and 25
so there would be a… those reports that come in three times per year would report on the 26
exact mechanisms or strategies that the school has implemented in that academic year to 27
reduce daily and peak hour trips and to monitor the ques to make sure that ques are not 28
extending out onto public streets and causing safety problems. And so, the intent was that 29
there would an adaptive management program that would be implemented over time as each 30
enrollment year brings a different mix of students from different locations. So that the school 31
can find the specific strategies that work the best for that mix of population every single year 32
and work with the City to maintain the performance standards that are expressed in that 33
mitigation measure. 34
35
And then Amy, I’m… I was really focused on that particular mitigation measure. I don’t know if 36
there were other CEQA issues that you wanted me to respond too? 37
38
Ms. French: I’m muted. I think that does it. I would call to your attention the Staff Report that 39
was published today. There is… there are a few questions that were answered about 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 73
Page 30
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
implementation and enforcement; as well as the TDM… the current program for TDM and the 1
proposed enhanced TDM. So, trying to look in real-time there is a mitigation measure cited in 2
there as well and that I guess is on… just had a Packet Page… Page 14 of the memo distributed 3
today. 4
5
Chair Templeton: Alright Commissioner Alcheck, did you have any follow-ups to those or? 6
7
Commissioner Alcheck: You know I’m… I’ll go… on my second round I’ll put together some 8
notes. 9
10
Chair Templeton: Sounds good. Thank you, Ms. Waugh, and Ms. French. Alright, what 11
Commissioner would like to go next? You can raise your hand. Am I on the right panel to see it? 12
Commissioner Summa, thank you very much. 13
14
Commissioner Summa: I’ll go since no one else was ready. So, kind of at a high level I agree with 15
many of the comments already made. And I did not share a concern that some of my colleagues 16
voiced towards the end of our last meeting about wanting housing there or some of those 17
ideas. And the reason is, is because I believe they have every legal right in the world to be a 18
school if they want to be a school. They just… they can be a school there with conditions of use. 19
So, those kinds of different uses don’t really seem to be applicable to the situation at hand 20
here. 21
22
I will say that some of the questions in the memo or Staff Report, whatever it is, I think some of 23
these like construction impacts and portables, trees, and pool noise. I think those can be 24
addressed and I think it’s really important that they are addressed properly but they aren’t big 25
item issues for me. And I think they can… and I think they should be addressed properly. 26
27
I do have a little concern about the Bryant Street traffic impacts and the bike boulevard. I think 28
it’s very hard to rely on TDMs. I’ve often said this on the Commission because they are very 29
hard to enforce. It’s hard to get any sort of… it’s hard to get good reporting on them if they’re 30
self-reported and it’s hard to get any enforcement of it in the past. I don’t know why Castilleja 31
would be more… it would be more successful in Castilleja’s case. 32
33
I have a very strong concern about history of CUP violations and how the City and the school 34
can work together to mitigate those. 35
36
I don’t have a specific list of Conditions of Approval at this time. That seems a little mature… 37
premature. I have higher-level concerns. 38
39
2.c
Packet Pg. 74
Page 31
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
My main problems with the EIR relate to the problem… the very basic problem that it didn’t 1
evaluate the alternative that the applicant now prefers which I understand that Staff has an 2
opinion about, but it still remains a problem for me. And now there’s even some variations on 3
Alternative Four that were in the attorney letter of last night. I don’t think the disbursed drop 4
off was looked at properly in the EIR for me. I understand that Staff doesn’t… because it is 5
mitigated a TIRE Impact but it has not in fact reduced the number of cars that will be coming 6
and going towards a school. And the disbursed… while the disbursed model helps the school 7
and the EIR not have that one impact, it doesn’t help the neighborhood concerns in my opinion. 8
9
And I… most importantly I believe that the wrong FAR was evaluated in the EIR with regards to 10
the basement and by that I’m referring to not the basement under the academic buildings but 11
the basement that is not under any buildings. So, it is in fact not a basement, it’s a parking 12
garage, and people, including the applicant, have gone back and forth on that but it’s pretty 13
clear it doesn’t meet the definition of basement in our code as they have to be under buildings. 14
And that those buildings, in fact, cannot extend into setbacks unless they’re already there and 15
then the building… in the setback I mean and then the basement could be, but that law… and 16
it’s… this is a very important issue for me. I don’t think our code clearly states that the 17
conditional uses allowed in R1 can have underground parking lots because they are prohibited 18
for residential uses quite clearly. But it doesn’t also explicitly state it so I think it’s an area in the 19
code that we should do some work on so it isn’t a problem but I do believe it’s FAR and that 20
would be a problem. And I think it’s on Page 4 of the memo/ Staff Report from tonight at the 21
bottom where this question is addressed and I’m trying to go there. 18.12.090(b) states and I’d 22
just like to point out that the B is a mistake. It should be once again little letter a and it clarifies 23
that basements may not be extended beyond the building footprint. And I assume… and this is 24
a question I guess, I assume the underlining or the emphasis there of the main residence is 25
Staff’s own emphasis as it’s not in the code and that only refers to… that pertains to main 26
residence and setbacks. And in place here does it indicate that you can have an underground 27
parking structure that’s not associated with a building above it so… and/or that it would not be 28
FAR. So, for me, the problem is not that it’s illegal to have an underground parking structure for 29
a non-residential use in a low-density residential zone, but that is FAR. And if that FAR… and 30
that correction is a pretty big one for me and unfortunately although there’s so much great 31
work in the EIR, I would have to see not a brand new EIR but maybe an addendum or an 32
appropriate way to address that. And to correct the square footage and figure out how to 33
address that so this project can move forward. 34
35
At this time because of some of these problems and others, I would not right now be able to 36
make the Findings for the Variance or for the CUP, but I’m looking forward to being able to do 37
that in the future as we move along. 38
39
2.c
Packet Pg. 75
Page 32
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
And I don’t know if that’s too general but… and to something that Commissioner Hechtman 1
said the loss of trust with neighbors. I could not agree with him more and I couldn’t agree that 2
one of those aspects of having a successful outcome for the Castilleja School is to really for the 3
City and the school to figure out how to make something… how to make a CUP, the conditions, 4
that are everybody takes seriously. 5
6
Oh, and the other problem I have with the EIR that’s kind of a big deal for me is I do not think it 7
was correct that the EIR evaluated the number of events that Castilleja currently holds which is 8
vastly beyond what the CUP allows. That seems like kind of as a baseline. Basing a baseline on 9
an illegal and ignoring an illegal Condition of Approval just seems to be wrong to me. In other 10
words, the baseline should be for the EIR should be what they’re currently legally allowed, not 11
the… how they… the baseline that is evidence of how they have exceeded their current legal 12
conditions. 13
14
So, and for the most important thing for me, the not counting of the FAR in the underground 15
parking garage which I don’t think is addressed in the… on Page 4 and 5 of the document from 16
today. I’ll leave it at that for now. 17
18
Chair Templeton: Thank you so much, Commissioner Summa. Perfect timing. Staff, did you 19
want to respond to any of this discussion? 20
21
Ms. Tanner: Thank you, Chair Templeton. We can certainly respond to some of the items that 22
Commissioner Summa raised. I know that with the Bryant Street intersections and Bryant Street 23
Bike Boulevard Commissioner Summa, did you want… having specific questions that you’d like 24
us to go over and explaining those intersections impacts; or was it more just a comment that to 25
make that function we would need good reporting on the TDM in order to not have impacts? 26
27
Commissioner Summa: Yes, and I do think that there was an omission from the EIR that it didn’t 28
specifically study the Bryant/Kellogg intersection and I think that should be amended also. And I 29
would like to see a better discussion of the disbursed car drop off and pick up impacts because 30
like I said it's taking it… all the drop-offs out of the parking garage got rid of the TIRE problem 31
on Emerson in front of basically the last three houses but it sort of redistributed the same 32
amount of traffic around on the other streets so. 33
34
Ms. Tanner: Ok, yeah, we can… if you’re interested we can respond to… explain a little bit about 35
Bryant Street and the events and garage but I don’t know that it would be different than what 36
we’ve presented in the report. And certainly, welcome the difference of opinions but we can 37
respond to it, or we can except your comments and we’ve written down notes on what you see 38
as some of the deficiencies of the application. So, it really is at Commissioner Summa’s request, 39
we could respond if she would like. 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 76
Page 33
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Summa: Thanks. 2
3
Ms. French: Yes? Ok. 4
5
Ms. Tanner: Is that a yes then? Ok, great. 6
7
Ms. French: I think I heard yes. So, let’s see I need to do the thing, sorry. Ok is this showing? Are 8
we good? 9
10
Ms. Waugh: Yes. 11
12
Ms. Tanner: Yes. 13
14
Ms. French: Ok. Oops, ok. This shows daily traffic volumes currently on Bryant. It shows 870 15
trips on Bryant currently adjacent to the project site with the existing drop off conditions which 16
is in these locations. Then this is from the Traffic Impact Analysis. This shows the project, the 17
Original Project, and there you see the TIRE Impact here with 679 trips going from adding 679 18
to 842 here. And then here is the Alternative Four traffic volumes that… this is pre-mitigation 19
showing the additional 292 and 220 trips here on Bryant. So, yes it does add daily trips so that’s 20
different than the intersection. That’s TIRE and so then there was the recommendation that 21
involved… so this shows the reduction over here was the original analysis here for TIRE Index 22
with the project that diverted all those trips. And then this is where those trips are added back 23
in to bypass that garage and redistribute. So, then there’s recommendations with the TDM and 24
the percentage distribution and I don’t know if I’ve got another slide for that. 25
26
Ms. Waugh: Amy, do you want (interrupted) 27
28
Ms. French: Sorry? 29
30
Ms. Waugh: Do you want me to jump in for a second? 31
32
Ms. French: Yes, yes, tell me if you want me to use these slides too, please. 33
34
Ms. Waugh: Yeah, that… you can stay there. 35
36
Ms. French: Ok. 37
38
Ms. Waugh: So, the slide… the table on the left shows what the… compared to existing 39
conditions what the change in traffic volumes would be if all the traffic for drop off and pick up 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 77
Page 34
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
is routed through the garage. So that’s the… on the left that says Table 7-7; but the Table 22, on 1
the right-hand side of the slide, shows what it would have been under the Disbursed Circulation 2
Alternative but based on the percentages of drop off and pick up locations that… I’m sorry my 3
cameras… that Castilleja had proposed. So, when W-Trans, our traffic sub-consultant, evaluated 4
the percentages that Castilleja had proposed, the numbers here that Amy’s showing with the 5
red circle on the right-hand slide of the slide. That’s… those are the traffic volumes that had 6
been indicated. So, but if you see to the column just left of that red circle, the 170 and 140, 7
that’s the number of trips that Bryant Street could tolerate without causing an increase in the 8
Traffic Index… the TIRE Index, excuse me. So, W-Trans had recommended a different 9
percentage of drop off and pick up assignments to the three different locations and by altering 10
that three different drop-offs and pick up locations. The percentage of traffic assigned to each 11
location there’s a way to fall below these values that would cause an increase or a TIRE Index 12
impact. So, if you… we can keep the new traffic trips on Bryant Street, segments 10 and 11 at 13
the bottom of that table, if we can keep those increases below 170 and 140 then there’s not an 14
increase in the TIRE Index. The way that the TIRE Index is measured, that increase would be 15
tolerable. It would not result in a meaningful change in the amount of traffic volume on those 16
segments. And by… so that is why Mitigation Measure 7A under the Project Alternative would 17
stipulate certain percentages of students to be dropped off in each of the three different 18
locations. And by managing those three different locations and the percentage of drop-offs at 19
the first year of full enrollment and then managing it with adaptive management technology or 20
techniques over time. Then the City can… and the City and Castilleja can work together to 21
ensure that we don’t have a significant increase in traffic volume on any one roadway segment. 22
And so that’s where the percentage is that are shown in these bullet points on the slide come 23
into play and those percentages are recommended for the initial year of full enrollment. So that 24
there’s not a significant increase in traffic volume on any one roadway segment. And then over 25
time the mitigation measure calls for this adaptive management with enforcement and 26
monitoring and reporting so that the City and Castilleja could work together to make sure that 27
these conditions that persist over time. That we’re not having a significant impact occurring in 28
year five or in year eight or whichever year. That they… that those conditions are monitored 29
and evaluated each year to make sure that the impacts remain less than significant. 30
31
Commissioner Summa: Yeah, I’d (interrupted) 32
33
Mr. Yang: I’d like to (interrupted) 34
35
Commissioner Summa: And I understand that but that seems like something that might work 36
on paper, the percentages, but I don’t know how that’s really going to work out. And so, I think 37
it’s… it’s kind of seems like something that would be hard to enforce and therefore might not 38
really work to resolve concerns about traffic. 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 78
Page 35
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Templeton: Mr. (interrupted) 1
2
Mr. Yang: I’d like to jump in on just a couple points, if I may? 3
4
Chair Templeton: Yep, I just saw your hand so please go ahead. 5
6
Mr. Yang: I think Commissioner Summa’s comments just now about enforceability and practice 7
are similar to those voiced by Commissioner Alcheck, and that’s something that as Ms. French 8
said, we will come back with more detail on exactly how Staff used that playing out in practice. 9
10
But stepping back, I also wanted to respond to one of Commissioner Summa’s comments about 11
the… this distribution addressing TIRE Impacts but not actually reducing the number of trips, 12
right? Just sending them into different areas and I guess the reason that the EIR focuses on the 13
TIRE Impact is because that’s the one area where the Traffic Study indicated that there might 14
be a significant environmental impact. And to the extent that the Commissioners have some 15
concern about the overall number of trips and how that may impact the neighborhood more 16
generally. I guess I would suggest similar to Commissioner Hechtman’s comments earlier that 17
that is not necessarily a deficiency from our point of view from the EIR but it certainly 18
something that is relevant to the Commission’s consideration of whether or not the Findings 19
can be made for a CUP for example which requires consideration of the welfare of the City. 20
21
I guess I would like to make a similar comment with respect to some of these questions about 22
interpretation of the code and the location of the subterranean parking facility or whether it 23
should count for FAR. I think that this was expressed in the Staff’s written document but the 24
interpretation that was explained in Staff’s response is consistent with what Staff has done 25
before and we believe that it’s a reasonable interpretation of our code. But these are, we 26
recognize, areas where there is some grey area and again if that’s a place where Commissioner 27
or the Commission disagrees with Staff. I think the relevant way of expressing that 28
disagreement is again in the whether or not you can make the Findings for the Variance or for 29
the CUP. Both of which require a Finding that the use is consistent with the Zoning Code and 30
the Comprehensive Plan. 31
32
Chair Templeton: I really appreciate you jumping in on that. Thank you, Mr. Yang. 33
Commissioner Summa. 34
35
Commissioner Summa: I appreciate the reminder that the EIR doesn’t cover all the areas of 36
concern for the Planning Commission. I appreciate being reminded of that, but I do think some 37
of these areas of concern will help Staff to understand what might be palatable in the form of 38
Findings. So, I hope that’s helpful. 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 79
Page 36
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Templeton: I see Commissioner Alcheck has put his hand back up. I know we need to go 1
to Commissioner Lauing for his full comments. Did you have something topical to Commissioner 2
Summa’s comments? 3
4
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah well, I guess I would just request that our counsel maybe delve a 5
little deeper into this FAR garage question, and the reason why is because this came up so 6
frequently in community comments. And I spent a good deal of time today with it and I don’t 7
profess to be an expert on carports and garages and underground rules, but I think a lot of 8
times the way that our code is written it’s very easy to get lost on… in the code sections when 9
we’re talking about residential use and non-residential use. And particularly within an R1 and so 10
I agree with you that the statement that the counsel made about this is an interpretation and 11
that’s how Staff feels. But I think maybe it would be worth the extra 5-minutes if you walked us 12
through the analysis on Page of… I guess it’s 4 and 5 and 6 starting with answers 3 and 4 at the 13
At Place’s Memo because if you’re not careful it’s easy to apply residential rules to this project 14
that would affect how you tabulate FAR. And so, I think for the sake of the community and 15
maybe for the sake of bringing us all a little closer because if that’s one of the biggest issues for 16
some of the Commissioners then I think it would really help, actually. 17
18
Ms. Tanner: We could certainly address that question if that would be desirable. 19
20
Commissioner Alcheck: And this goes to a bigger question, right? When counsel gives us 21
guidance, how do we collectively I guess decide to accept it, but I do think in this case it would 22
help to have a little bit more. 23
24
Chair Templeton: Ok so to follow, you’re following up on Commissioner Summa’s FAR to ask if 25
Staff could (interrupted) 26
27
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I think if they walked us through their answer. 28
29
Chair Templeton: Get into more detail. 30
31
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I think if they walked us through their approach and how they 32
came to the conclusion that it was… first it was a parking facility and it can be subterranean. 33
And then why as a subterranean parking facility qualifies as a basement and therefore doesn’t 34
qualify as to be counted as FAR. I think if they walked us through those steps and how other… if 35
it had been in a residential component it may not which I think is what some people have 36
picked up. 37
38
2.c
Packet Pg. 80
Page 37
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Templeton: Ok. I’m interested in that too. Is that… Commissioner Lauing, we’ll get to you 1
next. I would love to hear Staff on that. Good question Commissioner Summa and 2
Commissioner Alcheck. 3
4
Ms. French: I’m going to (interrupted) 5
6
Ms. Tanner: I think Albert may join in on the response as well with Amy to tackle this one. 7
8
Ms. French: Yes, in the slides at the last hearing I quickly popped four slides up on the screen. I 9
can do that again and take a little more time with Albert on that and consult the memo we 10
prepared today as we do this. I’m going to share my screen again. Sorry, it takes a while to get 11
this uploaded properly. So, I don’t know… Albert’s unmuted as well but these were the slides 12
that we shared last time to talk about the project and project alternative which both feature an 13
underground parking lot or parking facility. Our Municipal Code does allow parking facilities 14
underground for all types of uses. The memo that we prepared today does discuss the fact that 15
the City does allow underground parking for many types of uses, but not for single-family 16
homes; single-family residential homes; single homes. So, this gives the code sections that talk 17
about placement below grade and it’s an accessory facility to this Conditionally Permitted Use 18
that exists. An accessory facility is to provide the parking that’s required on-site by the code. 19
20
So, then the second question is should it be counted as Gross Floor Area and this is where 21
Commissioner Summa believes it should. And Staff is of a different opinion that it is not a 22
carport or garage which is counted in the residential zones and that it fits more into the 23
definition of basement. 24
25
Commissioner Alcheck: Can you maybe highlight also how you came to the conclusion that it’s 26
a basement even though it’s not beneath an existing structure. 27
28
Ms. French: Yes. 29
30
Commissioner Alcheck: Because it’s again non-residential. 31
32
Ms. French: Correct. 33
34
Mr. Yang: So, Amy why don’t we go, yeah to this slide. So, the… actually Amy, can you go to the 35
next slide on this? 36
37
Ms. French: Yes. 38
39
Mr. Yang: Ok and then is there another slide after this? 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 81
Page 38
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Ms. French: Yes. 2
3
Mr. Yang: Excellent. So, this paragraph at the very bottom of this slide is the definition of 4
basement from the definitions section of our code. That is basement is a portion of a building 5
between the lowest floor and the ceiling above, which is fully below grade or partly below and 6
partly above grade, but so located that the vertical distance from grade to the floor below is 7
more than the vertical distance from grade to ceiling. Basically, this defines basements being 8
any structure with a floor… at least floor of a structure where more than 50 percent of that 9
height is below grade. That is… this is a much more permissive definition than the definition of 10
how we think about whether or not basements are allowed in the R1 or whether or not 11
basements counts for Gross Floor Area. Basement is anything where it’s more than 50 percent 12
below grade. So, that’s how we reached the conclusion that this underground parking facility 13
could qualify as within the definition of a basement. 14
15
So, then you get to this different question of ok, well even if it is a basement, is it allowed to be 16
in this location in the R1 Zone? So, Amy can you go back to the second slide? And that is 17
addressed in the second set of bullet points. There are two sections of the R1 Zoning Code that 18
deal with the location of underground parking or location of a basement. The first one says that 19
underground parking is prohibited for single-family uses. In our view, this is very clearly limited 20
just to single-family uses. If you go to the corresponding section of 18.52 which is our General 21
Parking Regulations. This exact phrasing is repeated in Table 1 but it is only in relation to 22
residential uses and single-family uses. 23
24
The second question about can it be in this location? Has to do with 18.12.090(a) which says 25
that a basement can’t extend beyond the building footprint. So, that’s not… again that’s not 26
reaching the question of is it a basement or not? It’s about can it be in an area where there’s no 27
building footprint in the R1? And this is an area where the code is not entirely clear and so Staff 28
looks to prior interpretation and the prior interpretation in this area was that this section only 29
applied to residential uses in the R1 and not to non-residential uses. And so that’s the 30
interpretation that we’re following here, but we recognize that this is a potential grey area. So 31
that’s how we answer this question, can the parking… can this parking facility be located 32
underground in the location that’s proposed? Amy, the next slide, please. 33
34
The other question is regardless of where it’s located should it be Gross Floor Area? And for 35
that, we went to the definition of Gross Floor Area which is organized by zoning districts. So, for 36
low residential… low-density residential zones like the R1. There is a provision that says that 37
covered parking shall be included in Gross Floor Area and there’s a provision that says that 38
carports and garages shall be included in Gross Floor Area. Here we reproduced the definitions 39
of carport and garage and you can see that they are both limited to residential uses. And the 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 82
Page 39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
term covered parking is also defined in our code. It’s… sorry, we don’t have it on this slide here 1
but it… the definition in our code says that covered parking is a carport or a garage. So, we’re 2
basically at the same place. 3
4
So, we have a section of our code that says carports and garages was included in Gross Floor 5
Area, but those terms are in turn defined to apply only to residential uses. And that’s not what 6
this is so we’re left with the question of what is it? And from our perspective and in terms of 7
what we’ve done historically we have said the closest match is the definition of basement 8
which is what we started on talking about. 9
10
Ms. French: Shall I remain with the slides or stop sharing? 11
12
Commissioner Alcheck: One follow up question would be to what extent does your historical 13
treatment… how relevant is the fact that you have historically treated it this way to your on-14
going determination; and what would be the consequences of not treating it this way for let’s 15
say this project in terms of the suggestion that somehow there’s [unintelligible] treatment 16
being applied? 17
18
Mr. Yang: So, in terms of the significance of our prior interpretation or prior application of these 19
codes. I guess I’ll just say that it is our practice and has been our practice when there’s 20
ambiguity to look to what our prior application has been and use that as our starting point. 21
22
As far as implications of changing our interpretation, I guess I’m… I would need to spend some 23
more time I think before I provided an answer on that and that may not be something that I 24
would be able to answer in the public forum. So, I think that gets to the question of is there 25
some risk to the City… legal risk to the City of changing its approach. I think what I’ve said 26
previously on the issue is that if members of this Commission disagreed with Staff’s view that 27
we would be comfortable with that being expressed basically through an inability to make the 28
Findings. 29
30
Chair Templeton: Alright thank you all. Let’s move onto Commissioner Lauing who has been 31
very patient. Oh, look I see Commissioner Summa. Did you want to respond to that? I’m sorry. 32
33
Commissioner Summa: One tiny quick question and maybe Staff can provide this. I asked it at 34
the last meeting. A list of properties where this interpretation was used. That would be helpful 35
for the discussion. 36
37
Ms. Tanner: I believe Staff did provide this example of the Kol Emeth property and that project 38
as an example. I believe that was the most similar like instance where the garage and the 39
building were not [unintelligible](interrupted) 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 83
Page 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Summa: Sure, but I think the (interrupted) 2
3
Ms. Tanner: The garage and the basement were not in align. I don’t know that there are other 4
examples that meet the same parameters but Staff did review that I believe. Ms. French, that’s 5
correct? 6
7
Commissioner Summa: It would just be helpful because, to be honest, what I think I heard the… 8
our City attorney say is that there’s a legal question of whether you have to go with the practice 9
that you have been using or with the text as interpreted? And I’ve heard that before and I’ve 10
heard it go both ways so that’s interesting. 11
12
And also, the Kol Emeth meets a condition… the Kol Emeth parking garage meets a condition 13
that this parking garage does not meet and that is that it is under a building. And it a portion of 14
the building because it’s mostly under the building and it’s a very different use. So, I just 15
wanted to other examples to help clarify the issue. 16
17
Ms. Tanner: Amy, did you want to address that example? 18
19
Ms. French: Yes, the garage… the parking facility that’s below grade for Kol Emeth on Manella 20
extends beyond the footprint. In fact, into the street setback and that project also had a 21
Variance for Floor Area Overage so… and that was a new facility. 22
23
I also did provide a list with the Staff Report today of private schools in residential zones. Some 24
of those also had Variances and Use Permits etc. There are not many examples of R1 schools 25
etc. with basements. Basements are kind of a more modern occurrence these days so… and 26
also because in residential zones the Gross Floor Area and FAR was not in place for many of 27
these private facilities, non-single-family uses. So, the codes were not so specific back in the 28
day. 29
30
Commissioner Summa: Sure, yeah, oh you know grandfathered in and whatnot, but specific 31
uses where underground parking facilities don’t count as FAR when they’re not… when you 32
can’t describe them as being under the footprint or a portion of any building would be really 33
helpful. 34
35
Ms. Tanner: [unintelligible] the record and see if we can find any other examples beyond Kol 36
Emeth. 37
38
Chair Templeton: Alright, thank you, everyone. Commissioner Lauing would love to hear your 39
comments. 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 84
Page 41
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Lauing: First just a review of the process. I really think that massive documents 2
from attorneys and Staff shouldn’t be subject to At Place when we’re trying to talk about 3
something this complex. So, I haven’t been able to go through this my normal three or four 4
times. That’s my disclaimer but the areas of the EIR in general from the start, I didn’t have a lot 5
of substantive issues there. Commissioner Summa and Alcheck were a little psychic there 6
because that’s where most of my red marks are. And that whole discussion there and the slides 7
I thought was really helpful and I think the ambiguity is the really fair word from our counsel to 8
state that. Obviously, so that people understand that it’s not 100 percent cut and dry, but on 9
the EIR I only have two or three other little quick questions. 10
11
One is that I think it’s an ARB issue to take a look at the modifications needed at Kellogg so 12
that’s not in our bailiwick. And then was not… is the… are the shuttles going to be required to 13
and from lots in order to make the TDM and if so, was that measured in terms of the VMT and 14
Green House Gases and stuff like that? 15
16
Ms. Tanner: Ms. French do you want to answer that or perhaps Ms. Waugh? 17
18
Ms. French: Ok, I’m unmuting myself. Ms. Waugh is available and can address this as she 19
prepared the EIR. 20
21
Ms. Waugh: Yes. So, the… we did not look at any specific amount of shuttles being used. We 22
looked more at the overall program of really reducing the number of day trips; whether that’s 23
through shuttles or some other means. And so, then our VMT Analysis was at a broad level and 24
we assumed no increase in the amount of shuttling or other sorts of measures. So, the VMT 25
Analysis that we provided, which I would like to reiterate for the Commission, that we didn’t 26
evaluate that against any specific thresholds because of the timing of this EIR relative to the 27
timing of the CEQA guidelines related to looking at VMT. But we did provide a very general 28
picture of what the VMT Analysis or what the VMT generation would be from this project, but… 29
and that analysis assumed no increase in the amount of shuttling or any other TDM measures. 30
So, we looked at simply if we added the new students to the campus at the existing levels of 31
trips… of trips and trip lengths, which is the two metrics that really play into the calculation of 32
the Vehicle Miles Traveled which is what VMT stands for. So, we have that analysis or that… 33
those… that data in the EIR, but it’s not used as a threshold of significance because the City 34
hadn’t determined a threshold at that point that we were writing the EIR. 35
36
Commissioner Lauing: Right so basically, you’re saying in the TDM whether they use a lot of 37
shuttles or no shuttles, the City’s indifferent to that. It’s just the measurement of the SOB trips 38
or however you want to call that. 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 85
Page 42
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Waugh: So… right so we measured the amount of trips and the length of trips that would 1
occur if we assumed that the requested amount of enrollment was allowed and based on the 2
current trip patterns. And we did not assign any sort of reduction that’s based on the TDM that 3
is proposed. 4
5
Commissioner Lauing: Ok. 6
7
Ms. Waugh: So that TDM would reduce the amount that we disclosed within the EIR, but we 8
didn’t… we also did not draw any significant closures based on TDM or excuse me. Based on 9
VMT because that’s not the thresholds that were in place at the time that the Draft EIR was 10
released. 11
12
Commissioner Lauing: Right, ok. That’s all I had in addition to what my colleagues have already 13
asked about. 14
15
Chair Templeton: You win the prize for the most efficient. Thank you so much Commissioner 16
Lauing. Alright, I will add some remarks here as well. I appreciated and noted Commissioner 17
Hechtman’s comment about land use question versus the FEIR. So, I appreciate you pointing 18
that out. 19
20
I was also concerned about the bike boulevard. That’s a major thoroughfare not just for 21
students and faculty at the school, but also a place where we’re directing people to drive bikes. 22
So, I appreciate Staff taking the time to clarify that as well. 23
24
I also appreciated Commissioner Alcheck’s comments on the similarities between the I Sing 25
conversation and the Castilleja conversation with regards to micromanaging the CUP. I hadn’t 26
quite thought about that and there were some similarities in the organizations as well. They’re 27
really targeting girl’s education which we have to think about that as a community to make sure 28
that we’re not somehow creating an equity issue. 29
30
The underground parking, I do want to ask… I know you just went through it. I just want to 31
double-check my understanding. So, to reflect back what I think I heard it should be legal to 32
build an underground… we’re not calling it garage. It was a parking structure because it doesn’t 33
qualify as a garage, is that correct? 34
35
Ms. French: It’s a parking facility and an accessory structure; an accessory parking facility to 36
support the required-on site parking for the Conditionally Permitted Use. Albert, can pile on 37
that if you’d like? 38
39
2.c
Packet Pg. 86
Page 43
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Yang: Right so there’s two questions is first can it be built underground and we… there are 1
two provisions of the code that potentially speak to that. One is this version that says that 2
single-family uses can’t have underground garages unless they get a Variance. And so that 3
doesn’t apply and the other one is a version that says that basements must be located under 4
the building footprint. And that’s an area where we’ve also interpreted to apply only to single-5
family or sorry, rather only to residential uses. So, that’s the question of whether it could be 6
built underground. And then there’s a separate question of if it can be built underground 7
should it count towards FAR? 8
9
Chair Templeton: Yeah, I that Commissioner Summa covered the FAR question. I’m just trying 10
to understand the interpretation about the parking structure because how contention is that on 11
not understanding it as a garage? 12
13
Mr. Yang: Yeah so, the issue of is it a basement, or is it a garage is really most relevant to the 14
question of should it be FAR? 15
16
Chair Templeton: Ok so we don’t have to worry… I don’t have to worry about that. Is… so 17
what… can you just zero in on the suitability of an underground (interrupted) 18
19
Mr. Yang: Yeah. 20
21
Ms. French: It has to do with habitable space too. Let’s remember that piece of the equation. 22
23
Mr. Yang: That’s also a FAR question but the… just the issue of can you have an underground 24
parking facility in the R1? Our Parking Regulations say you have to have parking on-site, right? 25
You have to have a certain amount of parking on-site and how much you need to have 26
depended on what type of a use you are. If they also say that if you’re going to build your 27
parking here’s how it has to be designed. You have certain lane widths and drive isles and the 28
stalls need to be this size. And they set out different guidelines for design whether you’re at 29
grade, above grade, or below grade. And so, in all of our other zones, there’s not really a 30
question of can you have an underground lot? It’s just are you going to put it there or not. None 31
of those other zones say you can have an underground lot. It’s never expressly authorized. It’s 32
just understood from our code that you need to have your parking on site and if you’re going to 33
build it below grade, here's how it has to look. If you’re going to build it at grade, here’s how it 34
has to look, etc. 35
36
So, our view is that it’s allowed because it’s allowed unless it’s not allowed. Unless the R1 Zone 37
has specific provisions that say you can’t have it here. And that’s where we get to these two 38
provisions, one of which says you can’t have underground parking if you’re a single-family use 39
and then the other one that says if you have a basement it needs to be under the footprint. 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 87
Page 44
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Chair Templeton: Ok and just to be completely thorough on this because it is a bit nuanced. 2
Amy, could you please put the language back up (interrupted) 3
4
Ms. French: Sure. 5
6
Chair Templeton: For the relevant passage? The… my understanding is as you read this you’re 7
seeing keywords that are saying this doesn’t mean zoning. It means use, right? So, for example, 8
R1 Zoning is a residential zoning, but you’re talking about single-family use and that’s not 9
equivalent to R1 Zoning. 10
11
Mr. Yang: That’s right. 12
13
Chair Templeton: Right? 14
15
Mr. Yang: That’s right. 16
17
Ms. Tanner: Yeah and especially because part of I think what Mr. Yang single-family saying that 18
the R1 Zone allows certain uses that are not just the single-family home and so you can layer in 19
additionally that. That the use is allowed conditionally (interrupted) 20
21
Chair Templeton: Am I frozen? Can you guys hear me? 22
23
Ms. Tanner: We can hear you. 24
25
Ms. French: Yes. 26
27
Chair Templeton: Ok, I just turned my video off because I was not hearing you at all. I’ll put it 28
back on in a minute. I just want to be able to hear your response, thank you. 29
30
Ms. Tanner: Yes, I was adding that in addition to it being an R1 Zone, so that the use of the 31
private schools conditionally permitted within that zone. And so, part of what Mr. Yang is saying 32
is that there’s a prohibition for homes within the R1 Zone from having underground parking 33
garages for their cars, but there’s not a prohibition for another use, like a private school; or 34
could be other uses that are allowed in the R1 Zone that are not a home from having that same 35
thing. And the practice is that if it’s not specifically prohibited then it is allowed. In this case, 36
particularly it's meeting a code requirement which is to provide parking on site for that 37
conditionally permitted Use. So, hopefully, I didn’t infringe on his lawyerly interpretation of our 38
codes but. 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 88
Page 45
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Templeton: Ok, I have two follow up questions. One just to make I understood you 1
correctly that whether or not an underground parking facility is permitted on this site is 2
contingent upon the CUP. Is that correct? 3
4
Ms. Tanner: The use of the school itself is conditionally permitted. That existing… I suppose a 5
Finding could be made around the parking facility specifically Albert, that that doesn’t comply 6
and meet the Findings of the… that are needed. But maybe you can help with 7
[unintelligible](interrupted) 8
9
Mr. Yang: Sure, yeah, the CUP authorizes the use which in this case I think would include the 10
accessory facility of the parking. So, when you’re making the Findings on the CUP or when 11
you’re recommending… making a recommendation on the CUP Findings you could properly 12
consider can I make these Findings for this proposal which includes an underground garage. 13
14
Chair Templeton: Alright, thank you. That clears that up. Alright, thank you. That… I apologize 15
that you had to spend so much time on this, but I think it’s a really important nuance and 16
helpful to clarify the overall goal of this discussion. So, just to close it out are you also saying 17
that so long as it’s approved as a school we must then also approve an underground garage or I 18
think I heard a little bit of a nuance there in what you just said as well. That we could find 19
differently. 20
21
Mr. Yang: Exactly, yeah. I’m… we’re not saying that if you think it can be used as a school that 22
you also need to approve the underground garage. 23
24
Chair Templeton: Ok, it’s settled. 25
26
Mr. Yang: I was… I think what I was trying to say earlier is when you’re making the Findings, it’s 27
for the project as a whole, which in this case the proposal includes an underground garage. So, 28
you’d have to be able to say I can make these Findings, including the underground garage; or if 29
you can’t then you’d say I can make these Findings but conditioned on it not being an 30
underground garage; or I can’t make these Findings because there is an underground garage. 31
32
Chair Templeton: So, let’s say hypothetically that somehow the applicant found almost enough 33
parking at grade. Would we be allowed to make some kind of Variance or does that… how 34
would you adjust the requirement that’s driving the underground garage for those extra 35
parking spaces? 36
37
Mr. Yang: Sure, so there are a few types of discretionary actions that the applicant hasn’t 38
applied for, but could. One would be a Parking Adjustment that could reduce the amount of 39
parking for certain reasons. We’d have to look into whether any of those reasons apply, or they 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 89
Page 46
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
could also apply for a Variance to reduce the required amount of parking, and then you’d have 1
to make the considerations of whether those Variance Findings could be made. 2
3
Chair Templeton: Thank you so much for clarifying that. That’s my questions. It looks like we are 4
ready for round two. I see Commissioner Alcheck. The rest of you who may want to have 5
additional comments please feel free to raise your hands. I’ll get you down in order. 6
Commissioner Alcheck. 7
8
Commissioner Alcheck: Thanks. I… Chair Templeton I just want to… I don’t have to go first for 9
round two. Maybe I should let Commissioner Hechtman chime in but I do want to say that I 10
think one of the complicated parts of this is that when we look at this facility we go ok, that’s an 11
underground garage. But the definition of garage in our code is entirely a residential element 12
and so I think maybe for the purpose of the discussion we should be careful to refer to this as a 13
parking facility. 14
15
Chair Templeton: Yes. 16
17
Commissioner Alcheck: Garages are a parking facility but not all parking facilities are garages. 18
And I think… I have a question for you which is, I’m trying to follow your sort of line of thought 19
here and it seems to me like the garage meets… helps the project meet a number of goals and 20
to some extent mitigations. So, I’m curious are you having a difficulty accepting Staff’s 21
interpretation and thus considering an alternative that doesn’t include the garage. And then the 22
follow-up question would be if you’re not having a tremendous difficulty, are you concerned 23
that going in that direction would create other issues… would essentially create… would 24
eliminate some of the mitigation of other impacts that would be maybe equally or more 25
undesirable? 26
27
Chair Templeton: I appreciate you asking that question, and this was my concern at our last 28
meeting. Just really trying to understand to what extent the garage is playing a part in the 29
garage versus no garage part of the FEIR. And I just wondered… really wanted to understand it 30
better because I was looking for something slightly different than… and as Commissioner 31
Hechtman said, they don’t have to do every variation. So, I just really wanted to understand it 32
because my concerns around… I mean the parking facility. My concerns around the parking 33
facility are really the entrance and the exit portions and how they will have cascading… may or 34
may not have cascading impacts. And I recognize we have studies and we are very hopeful in 35
our projections that they won’t have an impact and we do have some in the Alternative Four 36
with disbursed unloading? What is it? 37
38
Ms. French: Disbursed circulation. 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 90
Page 47
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Templeton: Disbursed circulation. You know we’re trying to mitigate that even further, 1
but I’m also very concerned about setting a precedent. And the fact that we have one such 2
underground parking facility and we’re going to be building upon that because it set a 3
precedent. This would make it even more and I’m just thinking about what are the alternatives? 4
Have we thought about it? Are we convinced that the Alternative Four is better and to do that I 5
needed to understand what a no parking… I mean a no underground parking facility would look 6
like because in my mind it was a little different than the one that was in the FEIR. So, I was just 7
trying to get to those details and understand it a little bit better. I’m not sure that I have my 8
answer. I’m definitely going to go back and study it a little bit more, but I’m open to hearing 9
your comments as well. I know you all have various different backgrounds and experiences and 10
perspectives. So, I’m listening as well. 11
12
Ms. Tanner: I realize that it may be… not help Chair Templeton, you could ask the applicant to 13
talk a little bit about where the garage plays in their project. That obviously doesn’t provide the 14
perhaps environmental review that you’re thinking about for the FEIR; but as Mr. Yang said the 15
EIR is one piece of this puzzle that provides disclosure of impacts. And there are other 16
discretionary topics that are not environmental that still are of concern to the PTC that can be 17
weighed in on and could even prevent or help to have the Conditional Use Permit be granted or 18
not granted and the Findings be made or not made. So, you do have the applicant’s team here 19
to opine or provide insight at least into their thinking. Why they didn’t ask for a parking 20
reduction, surface parking, etc. and how that does or doesn’t fit in with their program 21
objectives and their ultimate goal of raising enrollment and redeveloping the campus. 22
23
Chair Templeton: I’m open to hearing that. My understanding in the FEIR was because it 24
[unintelligible] didn’t meet their objectives because of the Parking Requirement. So, if it’s 25
different than that, please let me know. 26
27
Ms. Tanner: I don’t know if Ms. Kauffman or Ms. Romanowsky want to weigh in on the 28
underground parking facility versus at grade or parking reduction or other permutations of 29
parking that could have been pursued in the program proposal. 30
31
Chair Templeton: I also saw Ms. French getting ready. I don’t know (interrupted) 32
33
Ms. French: I just wanted to again mention that this was pretty exhaustively studied about how 34
to avoid a below-grade parking facility with surface parking. And so that was studied as noted 35
earlier in a pretty thorough way, but of course, that was one potential option. Taking down 36
those homes on Emerson and putting a parking lot there to meet the Parking Requirements. 37
Katherine Waugh of Dudek may have more to say on that and of course, the applicant and the 38
applicant’s traffic consultant is also here. 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 91
Page 48
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. Waugh: So, this is Katherine Waugh at Dudek and I’d be happy to weigh in just from the 1
CEQA perspective… excuse me… and I understand that it can be unsatisfying from a public 2
desire’s perspective; but from the CEQA perspective we needed to look at a project alternative 3
that would meet the City’s codes to the best ability possible and still meet the project’s 4
objectives. And that is what is required under CEQA and so that’s why we looked at an 5
alternative that has a surface parking lot because under the proposed project and the project 6
alternative. Each of those would meet the City’s minimum required Parking Standards and so 7
we wanted to have an apples to apples comparison. Is there another way to achieve the project 8
objectives while still meeting the City’s codes? Whether… when we start talking outside of 9
meeting those codes and looking at parking adjustments and reductions. Then that is 10
something that is really not within the purview of the CEQA document but is certainly within 11
the City’s ability to consider options and alternatives. 12
13
Chair Templeton: I appreciate that and I thank you for clarifying that the intention was to do 14
apples to apples. I understand that better now and I appreciate the work you did. It was very 15
thorough and very detailed and helpful so thank you for doing that. In my mind, I was kind of 16
imagining like you say some other permutations so I also appreciate the opportunity to explore 17
that here with the applicant. Did someone from the applicant’s party want to speak on this? 18
19
Ms. Romanowsky: Hi, this is Mindie Romanowsky again. 20
21
Chair Templeton: Thank you. 22
23
Ms. Romanowsky: I can speak and then if any other member of the team wants to speak they 24
can certainly raise their hand. I just… I’d like to just say that this project has been going on for 25
many years. First, we… when we first contemplated upgrading and modernizing and creating 26
more compatible campus with the neighborhood. We spent hours and hours and meetings and 27
meetings with neighbors and it really was at the suggestion of neighbors to reduce the impact. 28
The slamming of car doors, the headlights, the noise involved with cars and so it was their 29
suggestion at the end of the day and we certainly have meeting minutes and facilitators who 30
we worked with. That really asked us to consider when we were looking at redesigning part of 31
our campus, to do it around a below-grade parking garage and so that was a threshold. I mean I 32
remember taking it to the Board and really making a pitch that this… even though it was going 33
to be a big task to take on… that it was what they wanted because it was going to be impact 34
reducing. And so, we embarked on this entire process with that as a premise and of course, 35
we’re curious to know what the EIR would show because we wanted to make sure that really 36
the impacts would be reduced. And we’re pleased that they looked at all different options and 37
permutations. At the end of the day having it below grade solves for so many issues that 38
neighbors suffer from. It really… I mean I think the number… someone on the team can speak 39
to this. I think we’re going from having something like 60 or 70 cars parked at grade down to 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 92
Page 49
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
something around 20 and so really it is with that level of care that we envisioned to do this 1
below-grade parking facility. And we’re building it just to meet… we reduced it to the point 2
where we can save the houses now, we can protect the trees, and we did it in a way that meets 3
the Parking Requirements. Certainly, if the City wants us to build less parking we could consider 4
it, but at the end of the day, we’re complying with the code not only from how many spaces 5
we’re providing but also as you can read in my letter and I think the Staff Report also echoes 6
this. The legality of the space below grade, while it is complex, I don’t doubt that in my 22 plus 7
years of being a land-use attorney. Going through all these definitions is no easy task, but at the 8
end of the day, you get to an answer whereby you’re trying to fit a round peg in a square hole 9
or a square peg in a round hole because it’s a use permit and we are entitled to operate a 10
school here. It runs with our land and we can do it and having the right type of parking to offset 11
impacts is imperative and so we feel like the Findings can be made. I would point you to my 12
Variance request letter, my CUP request letter, and all of those various reasons for why it is 13
very well supported not only by your code but certainly by the impacts that it offsets. 14
15
Chair Templeton: Thank you. So, just to sum up, you’re saying that you believe that the 16
underground parking facility is the superior solution for you and for the surrounding neighbors? 17
18
Ms. Romanowsky: Yes. 19
20
Chair Templeton: Alright thank you. 21
22
Ms. Romanowsky: And your Comp Plan contemplates this. That hasn’t even been brought up 23
tonight, but your Comprehensive Plan envisions more below-grade parking facilities space. So 24
that the neighborhoods and the surrounding vicinities can be pedestrian-friendly and can be 25
offsetting of impacts that are generally felt by cars parking. 26
27
Chair Templeton: I appreciate that. Thank you so much. Alright, that’s the end of I think… I was 28
already done with my questions, but I appreciate the chance for you to chime in. Let me who is 29
raising their hands next. Commissioner Alcheck, where there more questions for you? 30
31
Commissioner Alcheck: I came back to you right away because I wanted to 32
[unintelligible](interrupted) 33
34
Chair Templeton: I appreciate that. Thank you. 35
36
Commissioner Alcheck: The reason why I wanted to do that is because I am not struggling with 37
connecting the dots in the nuance of that… those land use definitions. And to be honest I think 38
actually the column at… example is really determinative because frankly, the fact that part of 39
that parking facility that is below grade is underneath some portion of a structure. Doesn’t 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 93
Page 50
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
change… if you were going to apply the standard that applies with respect to residential 1
basements, that they have to be within the envelope. It’s entirely within the envelope. 2
Residential basements don’t get to extend a majority outside of the structure that is supposed 3
to be above them. And so, if we go down that path where we say well, they’re not really similar 4
because a small portion of that garage is underneath this or a portion of that garage is 5
underneath this building. It doesn’t really work because you can’t extend so far away from the 6
building under the residential application. So, I would suggest that this isn’t some ancient 7
application of the code. This is a very recent interpretation and I feel like Staff and maybe 8
Council could be a little stronger in their suggestion that look, not only is this how we 9
interpreted it in the past, but we just interpreted it this way. And the difference between the 10
two isn’t fatal to that application, it would be fatal to both. And so, we talk about this a little bit 11
before and I have not thought about what you just mentioned about equity issues, but I will say 12
that one of the major risks of our incredibly thorough process in Palo Alto is that the length of 13
time… and I don’t think I mentioned this last time. We are now… there have been over 15 14
Commissioners who have reviewed this project. Is that we get so far away from what we 15
learned in the beginning about the demand… the interest of the neighbors let’s say in pushing. 16
What I just heard from the applicant was you asked the question, so you think that this will 17
accomplish your goals and the neighbor’s goals? And what I think I heard is we had to work 18
hard to get on board with this idea to satisfy what clearly some real interest on the neighbors’ 19
behalf. And now it’s become a big part of how they’re achieving the objectives of the project 20
and so for us to come back years later and say I’m not really sure this is a solution. I’m… this is… 21
I’m not saying we can’t, I’m just saying that’s a part of the problem with having a process that 22
takes over 5-years. 23
24
I want to add to a comment that the representative for Castilleja said and it’s in the letter which 25
is we… our Comprehensive Plan strongly encourages the use of below-grade or structured 26
parking. I’m quoting it. It says Policy T-5.6. I think that a lot of the comments from the 27
community struck me as the… in many ways the structure that’s proposed, the idea that the 28
envelope isn’t growing significantly. That there isn’t a significant increase or at all of square 29
footage above grade and that they’ve done this articulation to retain the housing and that a lot 30
of the open space will either be kept at the same level or in fact enhanced. To me is achieving 31
so many of the objectives of our Comprehensive Plan and I think the take away here is while 32
that land use thread is complex. Let’s not grow… let’s not get too tired and weary as we follow 33
that path that we start to question the whole premise of the underground parking because I 34
think the justification… I think once you get past that interpretation issue and the prior… the 35
way they’ve interpreted it in the past I think you move forward. 36
37
One of my questions I think for the Commission and the reason why I’m asking this is because I 38
think we benefit when we have these discussions as a group to sort of figure out what are we 39
sensitive to. Is what else is weighing heavily on this application for some of the other 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 94
Page 51
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioners because my feedback from Staff tonight would be… and I largely agreed with 1
almost every… I largely agree with every point Commissioner Hechtman made. So, if you were 2
taking notes, you can go down that list as I did and say agree, agree, agree, agree. And I think 3
that if we come back next meeting, I’d like to see Staff bring us language for to make the 4
Findings for recommending approval. I certainly think … it sounds like we collectively feel 5
comfortable with the Certification of the EIR. And so, the next step would be how deep do we 6
want to get into Conditions of Approval and maybe we need to have a little bit of a 7
conversation right now about are there any issues that would cause a Commissioner to struggle 8
with the Findings that we have to make for the Variance? So, I mean I would like to put this 9
back to the Commission and then have maybe Commissioners who are struggling, and then we 10
can kind of identify the sides of those issues and work through them as we have the last couple. 11
I thought that was productive, but I don’t know. Staff, do you feel like there’s feedback on any 12
specific item that would help you in our… when you come back? 13
14
Ms. Tanner: Thank you, Commissioner Alcheck. I think certainly if there are as you say other 15
items that Commissioners are really wrestling with and some of them obviously have been 16
named through their comments; where they either… whether it’s related to the Findings or 17
other items if it is related to the Certification of the EIR if there’s something that’s withholding 18
that. Either naming that and having discussion amongst yourselves to see if there’s the ability to 19
either be persuaded or information Staff can provide that would help to answer questions 20
that’s out there. We certainly could provide it today if we have it, or come back with it. So, that 21
certainly would be helpful if there are other hang-ups if you will be going one way or the other. 22
Making sure we have all of those and then we can answer as much as we can tonight or provide 23
the information in the future. 24
25
Ms. French: I would echo that I would certainly appreciate to kind of finish up with the CEQA 26
piece because we do have consultants, traffic, traffic from our own department as well… I mean 27
our own City Staff at the ready tonight. So, certainly, next meeting focusing on those Findings 28
and Conditions and discussion there would be… I don’t know. If we could just get through the 29
CEQA piece of it tonight would be great. 30
31
Chair Templeton: Do you have a slide that has… so I’m looking at the agenda item and there’s a 32
whole bunch of stuff in here. Do you have a slide that shows what all the bullets are of the 33
different parts of this agenda item? So that we know what’s in scope and what’s out and what 34
we might be able to find tonight and what we might have to continue? It’s ok if you don’t, I’m 35
not going to put you on the spot. 36
37
Ms. French: I can do that. I have Findings slides, the generic Finding slides. I have… you know 38
from the last? I have the last slide show already. 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 95
Page 52
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Templeton: That’s the one. Yes, that one. 1
2
Ms. French: [unintelligible] 3
4
Chair Templeton: I seem to recall you had it. I’m glad. I’m glad you remember where. 5
6
Ms. French: Yeah and then the organizing slide from the last show too that we never really 7
quite got too last time. I’ll go get that one. 8
9
Chair Templeton: Ok, alright. 10
11
Commissioner Alcheck: What… and Chair? 12
13
Chair Templeton: Yes? 14
15
Commissioner Alcheck: I guess my understanding was that do we want to collectively begin or I 16
should… this is to Staff and Chair. Do we want to begin that process of making… trying to make 17
certain Findings tonight; or is the goal that we do this all together along with Conditions as 18
one… I guess it would be more than one motion, but in one event if you will? And I would 19
suggest that I don’t mind either process, but it might be (interrupted) 20
21
Chair Templeton: What I think I heard Ms. French say and you guys can correct if I’m reading 22
between the lines too much. Is that we have all the consultants for the FEIR here tonight and if 23
we close… if we’re prepared to vote on that portion then we wouldn’t call them back next time 24
and that might be a… I don’t know. That’s just kind of… is that what you were saying, Ms. 25
French? 26
27
Commissioner Alcheck: I would just add that I think if we did that piece that you just suggested, 28
it would be a more complete… it would allow the other Commissioners to enter at a cleaner… in 29
a cleaner way because it will to some extent separate the discussion. 30
31
Chair Templeton: And I’m open to hearing from any other Commissioners about this too and 32
definitely Staff so. 33
34
Ms. French: So, just… because it’s always awkward to have the slide deck and not see people. 35
This has the slide that was to help organize last time on August 26th. So, I also have the entire 36
deck of CEQA that was processed last time and everything else as well. Including generic 37
Findings for CUP and Variance so. 38
39
Chair Templeton: Thank you. 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 96
Page 53
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Ms. Tanner: So, to respond to your question Chair and then of course, if other Commissioners 2
can weigh in. I think it would be fine and I also invite Jonathan Lait to weigh in as he kind of sees 3
how this process might unfold of what could be done tonight and what would be done in the 4
future. Whether its tonight or the next meeting, we certainly would be looking for direction 5
from the PTC regarding bringing back Findings of Approval or Denial and also Conditions of 6
Approval for the Conditionally Use Permit. So, things we’ve talked about like I’ll just say events 7
for example. If that was something that the PTC said yes events and even here’s some 8
conditions and Staff would propose some, but we want you [unintelligible] who want to take a 9
look at those and refine them maybe add things. 10
11
It is 10:12. I know that’s just a… not to say it’s so late, but it’s getting later. And so, what the 12
Commission may want to do this evening if there is a direction and I think I’ve heard clearly 13
Commissioner Alcheck and it sounded like he was saying to bring back more in the approval 14
direction. We could hear from Commissioners regarding that or regarding what’s preventing 15
them from going towards approval and then continuing to the next meeting if that’s 16
amendable. We still would need to obviously discuss lots of things. So, Jonathan, if you want to 17
weigh in a little bit on how we might navigate this remaining portion of this meeting and into 18
the next meeting? That would be great. 19
20
Mr. Jonathan Lait, Director: Thank you, Rachael. I think you nailed it and really, we’re just 21
looking to the Commission to give us some guidance. I would… I don’t think we’re asking for the 22
Commission to be drafting Findings on the dais if that was something that you felt that you 23
were at a place where you can give us that direction. Then we would go back and prepare 24
something and present these draft Findings at a future meeting as well as Conditions if it was 25
heading in that direction. 26
27
Commissioner Alcheck: Director Lait, can I ask you a quick question? Would the direction along 28
the lines of can Staff bring us back Conditions of Approval related to maybe the standard 29
application of Construction Conditions and conditions related to hosting events that are in line 30
with the 90 or so events that have been outlined for us I think in two places, but mainly the 31
letter we received last night that outlines the specific events? Can Staff come back with 32
Conditions that speak to that and also, I would suggest that one topic we didn’t talk about 33
tonight which is the idea of enrollment increases and a Condition that really helped articulate 34
how the school could achieve its enrollment goal contingent upon meeting the requirements? 35
For example, the mitigation and TDM requirements that have been discussed in the document. 36
So, is that the sort of direction you want and to stay away from specifics? 37
38
Mr. Lait: So, thank you. Yeah, so I guess the gating issue for us is the project… do you foresee 39
that the project is heading toward a possible yes and if the answer to that is yes. Then you 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 97
Page 54
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
would give us direction to prepare draft Findings and draft Conditions of Approval. And if you 1
had… and we’ve heard some of the comments this evening areas of particular interest that you 2
wanted us to highlight some conditions. We would… we’ve already taken the notes that you’ve 3
offered this evening. If there’s additional comments we would welcome that, but yes. We 4
would take the approach of then consolidating those comments, our knowledge of the project, 5
the concerns that we understand from the residents, and the project-related interest of the 6
applicant. We would try to draft Conditions that we thought balanced those interests. 7
8
The EIR mitigation measures is just a starting place and as it was mentioned earlier. There are 9
other conditions that would be drafted and recommended to the Commission if that’s the way 10
that this is heading. So, we can certainly do that as you indicated Mr. Alcheck. You’re on mute. 11
12
Commissioner Alcheck: I support the… I guess my last part of this comment would be I would 13
support the encouraging Staff to return with Conditions of Approval because I think that the 14
project is moving towards a yes. And I think that if we can get certainty and clarity on some of 15
those components that I mentioned, particularly 7A. And incorporating some of the… avoiding 16
too much micro-management, but incorporating some conditions in terms of operation and 17
events. And then finally specifics about how for example, would the portable… would the 18
infrastructure related to construction be removed at the conclusion of the project. I think that 19
would satisfy some of the comments and I guess my fellow Commissioners have other 20
comments. So, I would like to kick that off, that request off and hopefully other people can 21
chime in. 22
23
Chair Templeton: Thank you. Yes, I do hope to hear from everyone on those items. 24
Commissioner Hechtman has his hand up next. 25
26
Commissioner Hechtman: Thank you. So, I’d like to move my thoughts here in an organized way 27
and again, distinguish between the Certification of the EIR and the other land use Findings that 28
would be required to move forward an approval of the other pending applications. And my 29
view incidentally is that I am supportive of moving forward with the Findings that would be 30
needed to support Project Alternative Number Four. The reduced… which is what the 31
Castilleja’s advocating. 32
33
So, first, let me ask a minor question just because I don’t know how this is handled. The 34
mitigation measures that we have, particularly related to traffic, are going to require a 35
significant amount of Staff resources over the years to review and track and monitor and bring 36
reports to the Commission or the Council as it may be. What is our cost recovery mechanism 37
that is… if we have on that’s typical of the City that we would utilize here to put that burden 38
properly on Castilleja as part of its cost of doing business? 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 98
Page 55
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. French: So (interrupted) 1
2
Ms. Tanner: Sorry, Amy. Go ahead, you got this. 3
4
Ms. French: We do have precedent in the past of course with other projects as part of the 5
Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program to get a deposit again which we charge for 6
our services to monitor. I can think of a project that had below-grade… that had a plume going 7
on. There were hazards and we did something like that. We hired a third-party consultant that 8
looked at the reports that the applicant prepared and was kind of that intermediary to 9
understand those reports. So, something similar here where we have a third party looking at 10
what’s produced and providing expertise that… enforcement, this kind of thing that we may not 11
have enough bandwidth on Staff to handle. 12
13
Commissioner Hechtman: Alright and so… and I’m also interested in again the expense of Staff 14
time being recovered. So, among the Conditions of Approval that I’d be interested in seeing for 15
an approval would be something addressing that. Placing that cost recovery mechanism in 16
place as a part of our enforcement mechanism. 17
18
And then looking more broadly at the EIR Certification, one thing I couldn’t find in the very 19
detailed Staff Report and this is the one from 2-weeks is I actually couldn’t find the Findings 20
for… that we were being asked to recommend related to Certification to the EIR. Are those 21
available on a slide so that we can at least look at those? 22
23
Ms. French: I don’t believe I have put the Findings for CEQA recommendation on a slide. Sorry 24
about that. 25
26
Commissioner Hechtman: Ok. Then it (interrupted) 27
28
Ms. French: It’s definitely in the EIR itself. 29
30
Commissioner Hechtman: Well, I’m wondering… well, again what I was thinking and I was 31
keying off what Ms. French said is that if we could reach a majority at least, an agreement on a 32
recommendation on the FEIR tonight. Then really next time we’re wrestling just with the land 33
use and we can release all of these… the environmental consultants who are staying with us 34
tonight. But I don’t know how we can do that if we aren’t able to look at the Findings. I don’t 35
know if… I can talk a little bit about the land use issues and while I’m doing that if somebody 36
can dig out of the EIR where those Findings are. Then we can cast them up here so at least we 37
can look at them and see if we might have consensus. Should we do it that way? Should I talk a 38
little bit about the land use? 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 99
Page 56
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. French: Sure, I think Katherine is probably ready with something there. I can see her. 1
2
Ms. Waugh: Yes, yes so, the Findings that would be adopted to Certify an EIR, that really rest 3
with the City Council in this project. And so, we have not actually prepared the detailed specific 4
Findings that would need to be adopted. (interrupted) 5
6
Ms. French: And then part… sorry. 7
8
Ms. Waugh: [unintelligible]… that’s ok. What I’ve understood is the PTC’s responsibility is to 9
recommend do you feel that this Final EIR meets CEQA’s requirements? Have we fully evaluated 10
the project and the project alternatives? Have we fully identified the environmental impacts 11
and the mitigation measures that would be necessary to resolve those impacts where feasible? 12
And it’s really… it really rests with the City Council to determine the legal Findings, the Findings 13
of Fact and any Statement of Overriding Considerations should you… should the City approve a 14
project that had a significant and unavoidable impact. And so, we haven’t prepared those yet, 15
not knowing which way… how this project ultimately would turn out and so that’s why those 16
detailed Findings are not available to the PTC at this moment. 17
18
Commissioner Hechtman: Ok. Then if I understand that is the province of the PTC simply to 19
recommend to the Council that they either certify or not certify the FEIR? Is it that simple? 20
21
Ms. French: Yes. 22
23
Commissioner Hechtman: Ok, alright, so I’m interested in pursuing that recommendation 24
tonight, but maybe not quite yet because I think there might be some… we’re just starting this 25
next round; but at the appropriate time that’s really where I’d like to take the discussion on the 26
FEIR. 27
28
On the land use issues and in the original Staff Report, Staff laid out those Findings nicely for us. 29
And in fact, there are certain issues that I think we don’t have to tackle with Project Alternative 30
Number Four like the Tentative Map, right? Which is a function of the originally proposed and 31
studied project but not of Project Alternative Number Four? So, that’s a group of Findings that 32
we don’t need to pursue and I thought there was one other set of Findings? Somebody can 33
remind us of (interrupted) 34
35
Ms. French: Yes. 36
37
Commissioner Hechtman: Original project… what’s that? 38
39
2.c
Packet Pg. 100
Page 57
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. French: Through the Chair, the setback encroachment into the Embarcadero Road Special 1
Setback is not needed for Project Alternative Four. 2
3
Commissioner Hechtman: Ok, alright, and so does that mean are there two sets of Findings 4
left? One is the basic Findings on the Use Permit and the other is the Findings on the requested 5
Variance. Are those the two areas? Yes, ok. 6
7
So, let me just speak generally, and actually, I’ll take the Variance first. I am interested in Staff 8
coming back with Findings for the making of the Variance, but I’m… I think that it’s a robust 9
issue. And we’ve heard from the applicant’s attorney tonight that they have a draft of 10
additional points that they are nearly ready to send in and could in a day or two. I would 11
encourage them… not only would I encourage them to do that, but I would like them to do it in 12
the next day or two. And the reason I’d like them to do it soon is because the attorney for PNQL 13
may well also want to chime in with additional thoughts on this new letter and I’m hoping that 14
she could submit that kind of letter to Staff within say a week or so after the Castilleja letter 15
comes in. And then Staff, in addition to its own work, has all of these resources to draw upon in 16
wrestling with this issue and bringing Findings to us. So, obviously, we can’t require anybody to 17
write any letter, but I would encourage the applicant and the neighbors’ attorney to consider 18
that. So that those concepts could potentially be folded into the work that Staff… our Staff is 19
going to do in time for Staff to have time to work with it before they bring us… bring it back to 20
us at a time when we haven’t decided yet. 21
22
Alright so that’s the Variance issue and then on the Findings of Approval of the Use Permit. I 23
really don’t have any specific guidance that I want to offer Staff other than what I mentioned 24
earlier: That I am interested in a Condition of Approval relating to removal of the portables and 25
whether that’s addressed the way Commissioner Alcheck’s suggested as part of the 26
construction… end of construction, or in some other way, I leave that to Staff but I’d like to be 27
able to address the neighborhood concerns and that should be simple to do. 28
29
I thought that the controls on the events in terms of traffic and the number of them and when 30
they can occur, I thought that those were all ready baked into the project, but maybe they 31
weren’t and they were only in the applicant’s letter proposal. And if that… so I would definitely 32
like those folded into Conditions of Approval if they are not already on the list. I think that’s an 33
important aspect of the project. So, I think those are my initial thoughts on all the topics. 34
Thanks. 35
36
Chair Templeton: Thank you very much. Commissioner Lauing. 37
38
Commissioner Lauing: Ok in this regard basically we’re preparing for next week and this brings 39
us back to a couple of issues that we raised during the onset here. So, I think that we should 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 101
Page 58
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
have the Final EIR ready to approve next week and therefore we will benefit from hopefully 1
more than five. Hopefully seven Commissioners and if there’s a draft of the other Findings and 2
the CUP, I think that’s fine. I would expect that there’s going to be some conversation around 3
that when you get into things like TDM measures and a certain number of students per year, 4
otherwise they can’t do more and someone’s going to want to talk about well if they don’t do 5
less maybe they get a penalty. So, I mean there’s going to be things like that, that I think we 6
would benefit from all seven people. 7
8
And then the second thing is again, what we learned tonight is that we really need to have 9
timely documents. So, as you’re getting these things ready, I understand your Packet deadlines 10
are only about a week away. So, I just hope that those dates can be made so that we’re not at 11
the same circumstances as tonight getting substantive documents. So, process-wise that’s how 12
I would see it going best. To pretty much wrap this up tonight and have the EIR ready to come 13
to the full Commission next time and also a draft set of Findings. 14
15
Ms. Tanner: Commissioner Lauing, we might suggest and whoever… if there’s a motion to 16
continue to another meeting, October 14th if the will of this group is for the Staff to come back 17
with Findings in addition to EIR Certification. Just so we do have sufficient time to prepare 18
those. 19
20
Commissioner Lauing: That raises the question that I was going to ask (interrupted) 21
22
Commissioner Alcheck: Sorry, sorry, does that mean that you would do September 30th if it was 23
just the Findings? 24
25
Ms. Tanner: We would do September 30th if the discussion was continued. So, earlier this 26
evening there was (interrupted) 27
28
Commissioner Alcheck: I see. 29
30
Ms. Tanner: Discussion about continuing to have more discussion with potentially a full set of 31
Commissioners and so if more discussion was wanting to be had before giving direction on 32
what Findings to prepare. We could come back with that by the 30th. 33
34
Commissioner Alcheck: But if the… just… I’m sorry Commissioner Lauing. If they… if the group 35
elects tonight to recommend Certification of the EIR and dispenses with that element we would 36
still likely reconvene on October 14th to deal with the Findings responses? Which would give the 37
applicant’s attorney and the other attorney plenty of time to get back to you. 38
39
Ms. Tanner: Yes, and Amy do you want (interrupted) 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 102
Page 59
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Alcheck: Sorry, Commissioner Lauing. 2
3
Ms. Tanner: To weigh in on this? Sorry, I think part of it we just want to set expectations of like 4
what we can do by when and what’s realistic to expect, and a part of it is the distinction 5
between discussing things further and we’re coming back with a draft. When we’re coming 6
back with a draft, we need more time. If we want to discuss some of these topics, how do we 7
want to deal with them in the Conditions of Approval or just hey, this is really important. Here’s 8
why I have questions. We can continue that more quickly then we can come back with 9
prepared Findings to be reviewed and so (interrupted) 10
11
Commissioner Alcheck: Thank you. Totally understand. 12
13
Ms. French: Yeah, this is… I’ll just weigh in. This is in the realm of no good deed goes 14
unpunished. I mean we want to come back with everything you want and we want to come 15
back early enough. So that everyone can review it, including the public, and not be putting 16
things under your nose at the last minute. That’s not our goal. The other thing is just we do 17
want to have… with a new report with something new that we’re providing, not just responses 18
to questions but actual Findings. Anything like that, we want to produce that in enough time for 19
the public to comment on that new information. 20
21
Commissioner Lauing: Right so if that’s… if that needs to come back on the 14th there’s no 22
reason that the EIR could come back on the same day because they’re the same general topic. 23
24
Ms. French: Right. 25
26
Commissioner Lauing: And one of the questions I was going to ask at the end but applies now is 27
what else do we have to accomplish because we don’t want to take up all three at the next 28
meeting with just this agenda item? So, what I’m hearing is that maybe on 9/30 we would have 29
some other agenda items, but have the EIR and the Findings proposal on the 14th? Is that what 30
I’m hearing? 31
32
Ms. Tanner: Yes, that’s correct if that was the direction that we had tonight was to come back 33
with Findings. We could prepare those by October 14th. 34
35
Commissioner Lauing: I just… to net it out again I just don’t see any benefit of keeping these 36
other two Commissioners from looking at the EIR with the promises that have been made, that 37
they’ll be up to speed at the next meeting. 38
39
2.c
Packet Pg. 103
Page 60
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Templeton: I… is…how are we keeping them from looking at the EIR Commissioner 1
Lauing? 2
3
Commissioner Lauing: Meaning if we voted on it tonight. If we try to approve the Final EIR 4
tonight and recommend it to Council. Then two Commissioners aren’t going to be able to vote. I 5
don’t see that there’s any (interrupted) 6
7
Commissioner Alcheck: May I ask a different question? Are there (interrupted) 8
9
Commissioner Lauing: After I finish my statement. I don’t think there’s any problem in terms of 10
coupling those on the same date if that gives them the opportunity to vote and gives Staff a 11
little bit more time. Go ahead. 12
13
Chair Templeton: Ok, that’s a very different statement. I just want to be clear we’re not keeping 14
them from anything. 15
16
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m just curious, are you… do you share Commissioner Hechtman’s and 17
my feeling that the… are you feeling favorable about recommending Certification of the EIR? 18
The reason why I’m asking is because if for example four or five us tonight felt that we could… 19
again we don’t have to make the legal Findings. We would just simply be indicating that we 20
recommend that the Council Certify the EIR. That the EIR was sufficient I should say. That we 21
felt that the EIR had explored all the… had achieved all of its requirements and was sufficiently 22
comprehensive to justify finding that it be certified. I mean if a number of… if at least four of us 23
agreed on that, then I think we could… the one benefit would be we would have relieved all of 24
the Staff that has to attend the meeting with respect to the EIR. So, there are some benefits to 25
that, especially if for example we’re comfortable making that finding tonight and a majority of 26
what even could be a full Commission feels that way. So, and it might make the meeting shorter 27
next time. 28
29
Chair Templeton: So, thank you for weighing in on that Commissioner Alcheck. Commissioner 30
Lauing, so did you want to indicate a direction your leaning now or did you want to hold off 31
until next time? 32
33
Commissioner Lauing: I think I… I’ll say two things. One is I think we can get there with the EIR. 34
I’m not going to make any predictions on what the votes going to be, but I don’t see any reason 35
to give up the perspective of those two Commissioners that aren’t here because there’s no 36
downside to waiting for them to come. Other than the statistics that maybe somebody won’t 37
come next time, that’s all. 38
39
Chair Templeton: Ok. Did you have any more comments at this time? 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 104
Page 61
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Lauing: Nope, I’m good. 2
3
Chair Templeton: Ok. Thank you. Commissioner Summa. 4
5
Commissioner Summa: Thank you. I’m more aligned with Commissioner Lauing’s idea of not 6
rushing this process. We really… I felt really rushed. I’m glad that Commissioner Alcheck said 7
that he could go through the 2 o’clock memo report today and fully vet it against cross-8
referencing in the Municipal Code, but I didn’t have time to do that. You must be a speed 9
reader, but so I think there’s no reason to rush it. I would appreciate having other… the 10
Commissioners that aren’t here tonight, very much appreciate getting their input. And it 11
doesn’t actually put it us any… it doesn’t get us to the endpoint any closer because Staff still 12
needs to the 14th to get Findings… draft Findings available for us. So, there’s no real benefit 13
from doing it that way. So, I would recommend that we have our EIR discussion on the 30th and 14
then proceed to the 10/14 meeting that Director… Assistant Director Tanner mentioned 15
because it’s… the endpoints the same on both and it gives everybody more of a chance. And I 16
would recommend also that we let the public… that we take oral comments on this item on the 17
30th. 18
19
Chair Templeton: Alright, thank you for your comments. Commissioner Hechtman. 20
21
Commissioner Hechtman: So, I said at the beginning of this item tonight when we were talking 22
about the possibility of a continuance so that the two Commissioners could come back and fully 23
be involved in the dialog, I said that I’d feel differently if tonight we were actually making… we 24
had an opportunity to make a decision because if we’re ready to roll, any Commissioners that 25
aren’t here we just… we roll and they pick up when they come back. And it turns out that that’s, 26
in my view, where we are and I didn’t appreciate that we could be there at the beginning, but I 27
think there’s at least an opportunity here to see if we can put the FEIR issue to rest and move 28
forward and I see two benefits to the possibility of doing that. Number one is the practical 29
benefit that Staff mentioned. We’ve got a whole host of consultants standing by here that don’t 30
need to return if we have already made the recommendation regarding the FEIR, but to me, the 31
bigger benefit from our deliberation and consideration is that once we have made that 32
decision, essentially, we’re locking in our view on the mitigation measures that are in the FEIR, 33
and that gives us a very solid building block on the Conditions of Approval that are going to be 34
the heart and soul of our discussion on October 14th. I mean right because we’re going to look, 35
for example, we’re going to look at Mitigation Measure 7A, which is in the FEIR, and we will 36
have already recommended and we’re going to be asking is that sufficient? Is that really doing 37
everything we need it to do and if not, we’re going to build a Condition of Approval that 38
dovetails with it; but if everything is in flux, I think that exercise is going to be more difficult. So, 39
2.c
Packet Pg. 105
Page 62
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
that’s my feeling why I think there is a benefit to us in finishing the FEIR discussion tonight and 1
focusing on land use on October 14th. 2
3
Chair Templeton: Did you want to make a motion? 4
5
MOTION #2 6
7
Commissioner Hechtman: I will make a motion and if there’s a second, I can speak to it 8
although I don’t know that I have much more to say. I move that the PTC recommends to the 9
City Council Certification of the FEIR as compliant with all requirements of CEQA. 10
11
SECOND 12
13
Commissioner Alcheck: I’d second that. 14
15
Chair Templeton: Alright. Commissioner Lauing. 16
17
Commissioner Lauing: Since it wasn’t agendize as being up for approval tonight, maybe our 18
counsel should speak to that. 19
20
Commissioner Alcheck: If you don’t mind Chair, after counsel if I could speak to the motion too 21
that’d be great. 22
23
Ms. Tanner: [unintelligible] if you can address it or how this was or was not noticed in the 24
agenda item for this evening or for the previous agenda for was just a continued meeting? 25
26
Mr. Yang: Yeah, just a moment. So, the… all of the decisions that the Planning Commission 27
ultimately needs to make on this project were agendized tonight. That includes a 28
recommendation on the EIR. 29
30
Chair Templeton: Yes, I see it in the… in Page 2 Commissioner Lauing. Hold on, I’ll get to you in 31
a second Commissioner Alcheck. Did you find it Commissioner Lauing or (interrupted) 32
33
Commissioner Lauing: I (interrupted) 34
35
Chair Templeton: Yeah, you’re satisfied. Ok. 36
37
Commissioner Lauing: I believe you. 38
39
Chair Templeton: Commissioner Alcheck. 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 106
Page 63
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Alcheck: I wanted to just… I want to recognize Commissioner Hechtman, I think 2
that what you said was… it's very insightful. There is always (interrupted) 3
4
Commissioner Hechtman: 10-minutes? 5
6
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m sorry, Commissioner Hechtman, you should mute. It’s ok. I just want 7
to say thank you because one of the really complicated… I actually think that Commissioner 8
Hechtman’s point about how it will focus our analysis of the Conditions is so helpful; because 9
what’s largely going to take place is some maybe level of comfort or discomfort with some of 10
the mitigation measures in how they’re executed. Not necessarily their goal and that’s where 11
we can get into the nitty-gritty and I imagine that that will take a lot of time. So, I didn’t think 12
about that component and I think it’s… these are the insights that help us create better meeting 13
management, better effective management, and I really think that’s a… it’s a very… it’s a good 14
goal for us to have. Because when the next Commissioners come in, instead of starting this 15
dialog again, we can focus on something that I imagine that they’ll be able to provide a lot of 16
guidance on. So, I hope that we can find some support for this tonight. 17
18
Chair Templeton: Thank you. Commissioner Lauing, is your hand still up from last time, or is 19
this… you’d like to speak now? 20
21
Commissioner Lauing: No. 22
23
Chair Templeton: Ok. 24
25
Commissioner Lauing: No, sorry. 26
27
Chair Templeton: Anyone else want to speak to this before we take a vote on the motion? 28
Alright (interrupted) 29
30
Commissioner Alcheck: Just Chair, I just wanted to recognize that we would have to have a 31
second motion right to continue the discussion regardless of how this happens. So, just an FYI. 32
33
Chair Templeton: Yes, and we will come back for that. Ok, so Mr. Nguyen. 34
35
Commissioner Lauing: [unintelligible] 36
37
Chair Templeton: Pardon me? 38
39
Commissioner Lauing: Did you have any comments? 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 107
Page 64
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Chair Templeton: I agree with Commissioner Hechtman and I’ll be supporting this motion. 2
3
Commissioner Lauing: Ok. 4
5
VOTE 6
7
Mr. Nguyen: Ok, I will take a roll call vote. Commissioner Alcheck? 8
9
Commissioner Alcheck: Yes. 10
11
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Hechtman? 12
13
Commissioner Hechtman: Yes. 14
15
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 16
17
Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 18
19
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Riggs is absent. Vice-Chair Roohparvar is absent. Commissioner 20
Summa? 21
22
Commissioner Summa: No. 23
24
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Templeton? 25
26
Chair Templeton: Yes. 27
28
Mr. Nguyen: Ok the motion carries 4-1-2. 29
30
MOTION #2 PASSED 4(Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Templeton)- 1(Summa) -2(Riggs and 31
Roohparvar absent) 32
33
Chair Templeton: Thank you. Commissioner Summa, would you like to make a motion about 34
continuance perhaps? 35
36
Commissioner Summa: Sure, but first I’ll speak to my no vote. 37
38
Chair Templeton: Please feel free. 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 108
Page 65
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
MOTION #3 1
2
Commissioner Summa: It doesn’t get us any further along to the 14th to do this. I don’t see the 3
real benefit… I don’t think the necessity of releasing some Staff serves our highest purpose of 4
providing the best result to the residents and the applicant. So, it seemed to be unnecessary to 5
me, but I will make a motion if you’d like me to, to continue this meeting again with a… with an 6
opportunity for oral comments on this item. 7
8
Chair Templeton: Is there a second? 9
10
SECOND 11
12
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, I’ll second. 13
14
Chair Templeton: Alright and just to clarify, you mean to reopen public comments on this item 15
in the next meeting? 16
17
Commissioner Summa: Yes. 18
19
Chair Templeton: Versus the 14th when Staff Report would come back with new information. 20
21
Commissioner Summa: Yes, because of the missed opportunity this evening for the public and 22
to allow… because we’ve also… and they can also… public comment can help guide our input 23
about Findings and whatnot. So, I think it would be helpful. 24
25
Ms. Tanner: Can I clarify Commissioner Summa, if it’s alright Chair Templeton? 26
27
Chair Templeton: Yes. 28
29
Ms. Tanner: Is your motion to come back on the 30th for further discussion to give direction 30
regarding the Findings; or is it to come back October 14th having prepared Findings? 31
32
Commissioner Summa: So, we’re not going to have… we’re only continuing this it to the 14th 33
now because we don’t need to come back with this I guess on the 30th? Is that everybody’s 34
understanding? 35
36
Ms. Tanner: I see one person nodding but (interrupted) 37
38
2.c
Packet Pg. 109
Page 66
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Alcheck: I thought that the reason why we continued to the 14th was because 1
Staff needs time to prepare their responses and that we would have only continued to the 30th 2
if we didn’t go through the process tonight but that’s what I thought. 3
4
Ms. Tanner: Yeah, I just want to (interrupted) 5
6
Chair Templeton: Let’s get Staff to clarify. 7
8
Ms. Tanner: I just want to make sure that we’re on the same page. That it's to the 14th 9
(interrupted) 10
11
Commissioner Summa: To the 14th when (interrupted) 12
13
Ms. Tanner: Staff would bring then bring back (interrupted) 14
15
Commissioner Summa: With the opportunity for comments on this item, yeah. 16
17
Chair Templeton: Alright, so Staff just to clarify, we don’t need to come back on the 30th on this 18
item? The 14th is sufficient, is that right? 19
20
Ms. Tanner: Right and let me make sure… I’m going to relay, and I do apologize my brain may 21
be a little mushy, is that we are coming back on October 14th. We’re continuing this hearing if 22
Commissioner Summa’s motion is… carries. Continuing this hearing to the 14th of October. Staff 23
would come back… I feel like I’ve heard from two Commissioners that they’re supportive of 24
Findings of Approval. We would come back preparing that and as Ms. French said, publish that 25
with enough time for folks to read that and give feedback, and then Commissioner Summa is 26
also saying to have public comment open on that. 27
28
Commissioner Summa: But I have a question about that. There is going to be a lot of new 29
information that Staff is going to be working hard to get with the Findings and Condition of 30
Approval and stuff. So, it’s automatically not the same hearing. It shouldn’t (interrupted) 31
32
Chair Templeton: That’s what I thought too Commissioner Summa. 33
34
Commissioner Summa: Continuation. 35
36
Mr. Lait: I’m sorry, let me just chime in here. So (interrupted) 37
38
Commissioner Summa: It doesn’t make any sense now. 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 110
Page 67
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Lait: So, if the Commission… and this does not sound like it’s your motion, Commissioner 1
Summa. If the Commission is directing Staff to prepare draft Findings for Approval and draft 2
Conditions. What we’re saying is we need until October 14th to accomplish that task. If the… 3
and at that time we would encourage the Commission to reopen public comment so that the 4
public will have an opportunity to offer its perspective on Staff’s work relative to the Findings 5
and the Conditions. So, that would be reopening the public hearing. If (interrupted) 6
7
Chair Templeton: I don’t think that the Commission has given direction on the Use Permit 8
Findings. We’ve heard from a couple of Commissioners, but (interrupted) 9
10
Mr. Lait: Right so I’m just trying to layout the process as we understood it and the Commission 11
has a wide range on how it wants to proceed. The motion that I heard Commissioner Summa 12
advance was to continue to September 30th for additional public comment on a material that I 13
believe was transmitted today and yesterday evening. And so that’s a different conversation 14
and that doesn’t give Staff direction to draft Findings and so we would not expect then to 15
return on the 14th of October if we are continuing this to September 30th. 16
17
Commissioner Summa: So, does Staff want us to continue this hearing to get more clear 18
direction on the Variance and Findings for the CUP and the Variance to the 30th? 19
20
Ms. Tanner: That would be my preference and I believe (interrupted) 21
22
Mr. Lait: Well… I’m sorry (interrupted) 23
24
Commissioner Summa: [unintelligible](interrupted) 25
26
Mr. Lait: Let me just interject here. So, Commissioners, this is your decision. We’ve presented 27
the information that we have up to this point. If the Commission feels like it needs additional 28
information or it needs to continue its deliberation on the matter and that you’re not prepared 29
to give us direction to draft Findings. Then the appropriate course of action would be to 30
continue this to November 30th [note – September 30th]. However (interrupted) 31
32
Chair Templeton: September. 33
34
Ms. French: October 14th. 35
36
Chair Templeton: September. Hold on, hold on, hold on. 37
38
Mr. Lait: I want to be really clear on this. 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 111
Page 68
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Ms. French: September. 1
2
Mr. Lait: If you are not asking us to prepare Findings at this time we would return on September 3
30th for your continued discussion. At that time on the 30th presumably, we would get direction 4
from the Commission to draft some Findings either in support or denial. 5
6
Chair Templeton: Thank you, that’s very helpful. I see Commissioner Alcheck’s hand. I… just to 7
chime in here, my understanding is that we have not discussed the CUP and the Variance much 8
tonight at all and if we do have an opportunity to do that at our next meeting I would be 9
interested in that. So, just to weigh in on that. Commissioner Alcheck. 10
11
Commissioner Alcheck: I have a different perspective. I think I am comfortable directing Staff 12
based on the favorable intent with respect to this… based on my favorable interpretation of this 13
application. That they could come back with Findings for the Variance and Findings for the CUP 14
and I specified a few areas where I would like to see conditions. Including with respect to 15
disassembly of infrastructure related to the construction… during the ongoing construction. My 16
second one had to do with understanding how the enrollment… the new enrollment number 17
and the conditions that have to be met in order to maintain that or level up to it if you will. And 18
then the third one was conditions that were related to the operation of the school with respect 19
to events and I wanted to suggest that Staff utilize the specific list that was provided this week. 20
21
And so, I would direct… I would make a motion… there’s… I think there’s a motion on the floor, 22
but when that motion is dealt with. I would make a motion saying that I’d like Staff to return on 23
October 14th with having prepared that. So that as a group of whoever is there, hopefully, a 24
quorum, we can begin to evaluate those Findings and build upon them as Commissioner 25
Hechtman suggested in an effort to make them achieve the goals that we have. And so, I am 26
loath to continuing this hearing for the purposes of continuing this discussion to September 30th 27
and I don’t think it would make sense to reopen the hearing on September 30th based on the 28
information we have received. 29
30
I do think that if we returned on October 14th and there’s Staff recommendations. Then we 31
would go through the process of allowing the public to comment on what Staff has prepared for 32
us to consider and so that would in fact be new information. So, at the conclusion of this 33
discussion and the motion, I would make that motion. And I would suggest that I think 34
Commissioner Hechtman has also provided some guidance with respect both to the CUP and 35
the Variance. And also, some conditions and I would encourage anyone else to provide some 36
guidance there so that it can be robust. And I think if you’re withholding… if you’re holding back 37
on giving some notes, even if you don’t plan on supporting this motion I’m suggesting I would 38
make, I would still give those notes. So that they’re incorporated because if that motion does 39
happen to carry today. Then we will be meeting on October 14th and Staff will have had time to 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 112
Page 69
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
respond to your notes about Conditions of Approval related to the CUP and the Findings related 1
to the Variance. 2
3
Chair Templeton: Ok. Thank you. 4
5
MOTION #3 RESTATED 6
7
Commissioner Summa: I’ll restate my motion to make it clearer and thank you for pointing it 8
out Chair, that it was a little unclear. I will… I’m making a motion to continue this meeting to 9
9/30 for a discussion on the Conditional Use Permit and Variance with oral… with the public 10
being able to make comments. 11
12
Chair Templeton: And you mean new commenters, right? 13
14
Commissioner Summa: I’m open to… if it could be just new commenters, I would be open to 15
comments in general. We actually did not have anywhere near 100 at the last meeting. That 16
was actually at our DEIR meeting. There were about 60 and it was about 2-hours. It’s 11 o’clock 17
and I think it is a little late to start a discussion about the Variance; which we really haven’t 18
discussed at all and we’ve discussed very little on the Conditional Use Permit. So, I would like… 19
so that’s why I made my motion to continue just those two items. If there’s an appetite for 20
taking oral comment on the 30th I think that would be appropriate too. 21
22
Chair Templeton: Commissioner Lauing, are you still seconding as [unintelligible](interrupted) 23
24
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, that’s [unintelligible]… that’s exactly the question I was going to 25
formulate because I’m trying to understand the objective of that 30th meeting compared to the 26
14th. Is the objective Commissioner Summa, that there would be… beside the public comment 27
which I value, that there would be Commissioner comment but without a proposal on the 28
table? And if so, why is that more productive than having a proposal on the table? 29
30
Commissioner Summa: Because I don’t think we’ve had anywhere near the robust conversation 31
we need to have and it won’t slow Staff down. Staff doesn’t have to prepare anything for this 32
meeting. We have it all here. It just gives us a chance to talk about it and the public a chance to 33
comment before the meeting on 10/14. 34
35
Commissioner Lauing: Ok so substantially it’s for public comment basically? 36
37
Commissioner Summa: And for our discussion, because we haven’t had enough of a discussion 38
about either the Conditional Use Permit or the Variance. And I think that could take a while and 39
I think it’s too late. 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 113
Page 70
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Lauing: Ok, ok, so I’ll stay with the second. 2
3
Chair Templeton: Alright, thank you. We’ve heard from Commissioner Alcheck. Commissioner 4
Hechtman, do you have any comments on this before we take a vote? 5
6
Commissioner Hechtman: Sure, I’m not going to support this motion. First of all, I am opposed 7
to reopen the public hearing until we have some draft Conditions and Findings for the public to 8
react and comment on. That’s really where I want to hear from them next. And incidentally 9
between now and October 14th or whatever date, the public is free to continue to keep writing 10
us letters and I’ll keep reading them. What we’re talking about is the public hearing so I have an 11
alternate motion that I’d be open to make, but I won’t prejudice this one other than to say I’m 12
not supportive of that concept. 13
14
VOTE 15
16
Chair Templeton: Alright, I hear… my thoughts are that I hear that we all want to have a robust 17
discussion about the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance and there are two minds here 18
about how to do that. One is to do that before reacting to draft Findings so that we can provide 19
more direction to those draft Findings and the other is to react to draft Findings because it 20
might be a more productive discussion if we’re reacting to something. Both of these seem 21
reasonable to me. I personally prefer to react so I would probably… I will oppose this motion 22
and hope that we have another motion that’s [unintelligible]. Ok, are we ready to take the 23
vote? Mr. Nguyen. 24
25
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, I will begin the roll call vote. Commissioner Alcheck? 26
27
Commissioner Alcheck: No. 28
29
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Hechtman? 30
31
Commissioner Hechtman: No. 32
33
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 34
35
Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 36
37
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Riggs is absent. Vice-Chair Roohparvar is absent. Commissioner 38
Summa? Commissioner Summa? 39
40
2.c
Packet Pg. 114
Page 71
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Summa: Yes. 1
2
Mr. Nguyen: And Chair Templeton? 3
4
Chair Templeton: No. 5
6
Mr. Nguyen: Ok the motion does not carry. 7
8
MOTION #3 FAILS 2(Summa, Lauing) – 3(Alcheck, Hechtman, Templeton) -2(Riggs and 9
Roohparvar absent) 10
11
Chair Templeton: Thank you. Commissioner Hechtman. 12
13
MOTION #4 14
15
Commissioner Hechtman: I’d like to make a motion. I move that the PTC direct Staff to… let me 16
start over, see if I get this right. Albert can help me if I falter. I move that we continue this PTC 17
hearing to our October 14th hearing… meeting. That at the October 14th meeting Staff present 18
us with draft Findings and Conditions of Approval for Project Alternative Number Four and that 19
at the October 14th hearing there be a reopening of the public hearing to allow the public the 20
opportunity to comment on the draft Findings and the draft Conditions of Approval. 21
22
Chair Templeton: Is there a second? 23
24
SECOND 25
26
Commissioner Alcheck: Second. 27
28
Chair Templeton: Ok. Would either you like to speak to this? Ok, Commissioner Hechtman. 29
30
Commissioner Hechtman: So, just very briefly and I thought Chair Templeton, you summarized 31
it really nicely. That doing it this way… first of all, voting for this motion is not a vote to approve 32
the project. It’s just a vote to take the next step and look at Conditions of Approval that are 33
really going to shape the project. And so, I encourage all the Commissioners to be open to that, 34
but as Chair Templeton said, it really gives us something to react to and focus on and allows us I 35
think to be more productive when we come back on the October 14th and fine-tune Conditions 36
and Findings and I don’t mean to diminish that. There can be some major changes 37
contemplated as… in the proposed project at part of that depending upon how we as a group 38
feel about the project. And also, I think that this will give the absent Commissioners an 39
2.c
Packet Pg. 115
Page 72
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
opportunity to reconstitute themselves, review in advance the drafts and really be ready for a 1
full robust discussion when we come back on the 14th. 2
3
Chair Templeton: Thank you. Commissioner Alcheck, did you want to add to that? 4
5
Commissioner Alcheck: I echo all those sentiments and I also think maybe one unforeseen 6
consequence of the alternative would have been that if we had reconvened on the 30th and 7
then given direction to Staff. I don’t imagine that they would have been able to return on 8
October 14th. I think it would have likely had meant that we wouldn’t have met again until 9
November and that would have been a consequence that I think was unintended. So, I think 10
this sounds like a little more than… I want to echo that I hope that the individuals that 11
Commissioner Hechtman mentioned earlier do follow up and communicate their thoughts to us 12
and do so timely. So, that they can be incorporated in some of Staff’s work. I really do think that 13
would be valuable to me. 14
15
Chair Templeton: Thank you. Commissioner Lauing or Summa, would you like to speak to this 16
before we vote? No, ok. Mr. Nguyen, please conduct a vote on this motion. 17
18
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Alcheck? 19
20
Commissioner Alcheck: Yes. 21
22
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Hechtman? 23
24
Commissioner Hechtman: Yes. 25
26
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 27
28
Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 29
30
Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Riggs is absent. Vice-Chair Roohparvar is absent. Commissioner 31
Summa? 32
33
Commissioner Summa: No. 34
35
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Templeton? 36
37
Chair Templeton: Yes. 38
39
Mr. Nguyen: Ok, the motion carries 4-1-2. 40
2.c
Packet Pg. 116
Page 73
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
MOTION #4 PASSED 4(Alcheck, Hechtman, Lauing, Templeton) – 1(Summa) – 2(Riggs and 2
Roohparvar absent) 3
4
Chair Templeton: Thank you. Commissioner Summa, did you want to speak to your no vote? 5
6
Commissioner Summa: Oh, just to say that I would have to agree with… disagree with 7
Commissioner Hechtman. I don’t think that… I think that we’ve skipped an opportunity to give a 8
full hearing process to the public and the applicant by not meeting on the 30th. And I think 9
that’s a shame. 10
11
Chair Templeton: Alright, thank you. So, this item has been continued and we can move onto 12
the next agenda item. 13
Commission Action: Motion to continue by Summa, fails due to lack of a second 14
Commission Action: Motion to approve by Hechtman, seconded by Alcheck. Carries 4-1-2 15
(Summa against; Riggs and Roohparvar absent) 16
Commission Action: Motion to continue by Summa, seconded by Lauing. Fails 2-3-3 (Alcheck, 17
Hechtman, and Templeton against, Riggs and Roohparvar absent) 18
Commission Action: Motion to continue by Hechtman, seconded by Alcheck. Carries 4-1-2 19
(Summa against, Riggs and Roohparvar absent) 20
2.c
Packet Pg. 117
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 1
CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Introduction
Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that, whenever
a public agency approves a project based on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the public agency
shall establish a mitigation monitoring or reporting program to ensure that all adopted mitigation
measures are implemented.
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is intended to satisfy this requirement of
the CEQA Guidelines for the Castilleja School Project, as evaluated in the Castilleja School Project EIR,
State Clearinghouse Number 2017012052. This MMRP will be used by City of Palo Alto (City) staff and
mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures included in the
certified EIR (inclusive of those measures identified in the Initial Study provided in EIR Appendix A)
during project implementation and operation.
The intent of the MMRP is to ensure effective implementation and enforcement of all adopted
mitigation measures. The MMRP addresses the requirements for development of detailed plans,
monitoring activities, and reporting regarding construction and operational activities authorized under
the Castilleja School 2020 Conditional Use Permit. The mitigation measure numbering reflects the
numbering used in the Castilleja School Project EIR.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Overview
The MMRP includes three tables. Table 1 lists the full text of each mitigation measure and specific
requirements for implementation, monitoring, and timing of each required action, as well as
performance criteria by which the City can verify that each measure has been implemented effectively.
Where a timing requirement is indicated as “in perpetuity,” these requirements shall remain in effect
throughout all operational activities of Castilleja School at its current location at 1310 Bryant Street,
unless modified by future amendments to the Conditional Use Permit.
Tables 2 and 3 are formatted to serve as checklists for the City to verify compliance with measures
that apply only to construction activities (Table 2) and those that apply only to operational activities
(Table 3). They repeat the mitigation measure text and performance criteria and include blank columns
where the City can record actions taken to verify mitigation measure implementation and attainment
of the identified performance criteria. These checklists will be incorporated into the project file
maintained by the City’s Department of Planning and Community Environment and available for public
review.
2.d
Packet Pg. 118
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 2
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
EIR MITIGATION MEASURES
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Mitigation Measure 4a: The Castilleja School Conditional Use
Permit shall include the following restrictions for onsite 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 instructional hours and related school programing,
students and staff already onsite are not considered
guests. When a special event is held outside of
instructional hours and related school programming, all
attendees (including students and staff) are considered
guests.
2. There shall be a maximum of 90 special events each year,
which includes 5 Major Events, defined as events that
bring almost all students and parents to the Castilleja
campus.
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 instructional hours
and related school programming and have between 50
Implementation:
City of Palo Alto to ensure
requirements included in
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Castilleja School to ensure special
event schedules, sizes, and
parking plans comply with the
requirements
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
At time of CUP approval –
requirements included in CUP
In perpetuity – adhere to special
events requirements
In perpetuity – parking plans
submitted to City prior to onsite
special events
No more than 90 special events are
held in any calendar year.
No onsite events are held on
Sundays
All athletic competitions occur on
weekdays and end by 8 p.m.
A parking plan is prepared and
submitted to the City prior to each
event. A single parking plan may be
prepared to apply to more than one
event, when those events occur in
similar time periods and have similar
attendance (e.g., a single plan that
applies to multiple events held during
instructional hours and related school
programming with between 50 and
80 guests; a separate single plan that
applies to multiple events held
outside of instructional hours and
related school programing and have
fewer than 160 guests). Such plan(s)
would be submitted for City review
2.d
Packet Pg. 119
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 3
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
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 instructional hours and
related school programing 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 use best efforts to park at one or more satellite
parking locations, if available, 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.
7. For events that occur outside of instructional hours and
related school programing and have fewer than 160
guests, all parking shall occur on-site.
8. For events that occur outside of instructional hours and
related school programing 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 use best efforts to park at one or more
satellite parking locations, if available, sufficient to provide
at least one parking space for every 1.3 guests and
provide shuttle service for guests using those locations.
and approval once annually prior to
the first event intended to be covered
by that plan and thereafter applied to
multiple events (with similar timing
and attendance) without additional
City review and approval. This does
not preclude Castilleja from preparing
additional plans for events with
similar timing and attendance within
the same calendar year.
Castilleja implements approved
parking plan, utilizes traffic monitors,
and provides shuttle service during
events (if required based on the size
and timing of the event)
City or third-party compliance monitor
conducts occasional field inspections
to verify adherence to
conditions/restrictions of the CUP
2.d
Packet Pg. 120
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 4
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
Further, Castilleja shall retain traffic monitors to help direct
event traffic to appropriate parking locations.
Mitigation Measure 4b: Prior to issuance of demolition, grading,
and/or building permits for each construction phase, Castilleja
School shall submit to the City Arborist a Tree Protection and
Preservation Plan meeting the requirements of the Tree Technical
Manual Sections 2.10 and 6.30. This shall include an inventory of
the species, size, and condition of all trees within 50 feet of the
construction area. The Tree Protection, Removal, and Relocation
Plan must identify the regulatory status of each tree based on the
tree size at the time this plan is prepared for each construction
phase. For the regulated trees to be retained in place, the Tree
Protection and Preservation Plan must identify specific tree
protection measures to be in place during construction, consistent
with Section 8.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Tree protection
measures for unregulated trees must also be identified.
For all trees to be removed, the Tree Protection and Preservation
Plan must identify their species and size and identify specific
locations where new tree planting would occur to replace the
removed trees. For trees that are protected under the Municipal
Code, replacement planting must include trees of the same
species as the protected tree to be removed, and must include
sufficient new trees to replace the tree canopy consistent with the
replanting ratios identified in Tree Technical Manual Table 3-1
based on the size of the tree at the time of removal or relocation.
For trees that are not protected under the Municipal Code,
replacement planting must be sufficient to provide no net loss of
tree canopy after 10 years. If it is not possible to plant all required
replacement trees onsite, the requirements of Section 3.15 of the
Tree Technical Manual shall apply, allowing for tree replacement
using the Tree Value Replacement Standard in Tree Technical
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
Prior to issuance of demolition,
grading, and/or building permits for
each construction phase – submit
Tree Protection and Preservation
Plan, implement all pre-
construction tree protection
measures identified in the
approved plan, and submit
Verification of Tree Protection
Report
During construction – Conduct
monthly inspections and submit
Monthly Inspection Report
Five years following completion of
each construction phase – Monitor
all trees (retained, relocated,
newly planted) and submit annual
reports
Additional five years after
subsequent replanting – for
All tree protection, removal, planting,
and monitoring complies with the
Tree Technical Manual
Tree Protection and Preservation
Plan submitted to City for review and
approval for each construction phase
All identified pre-construction tree
protection measures are
implemented, as documented in a
Verification of Tree Protection Report
submitted to City prior to issuance of
a grading permit
Routine inspections and monitoring
are conducted throughout each
construction phase and documented
in Monthly Inspection Reports filed
with the City
All retained, relocated, and planted
trees are monitored for five (5) years
from completion of the construction
phase; annual reports are filed.
Any trees that do not survive the
initial five (5) year monitoring are
replaced and monitored for five (5)
2.d
Packet Pg. 121
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 5
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
Manual Section 3.25, and for that sum of money to be used in the
following order of preference, as approved by the Director: (1) to
provide additional trees elsewhere on the site; (2) to add or
replace street trees or other public landscaping in the vicinity, or
(3) to add trees or other landscaping to other City property.
For trees to be relocated, the Tree Protection and Preservation
Plan must identify the specific methods for tree removal, storage,
and replanting for each individual tree, including the location
where the tree would be replanted and when that replanting would
occur. Because tree relocation shortens a tree’s lifespan,
replacement planting is required for all relocated trees consistent
with the Tree Technical Manual Table 3-1 (and Section 3.15 if
some replacement trees cannot be planted onsite). The relocated
tree shall be included as one of the required replacement trees.
For example, if the Tree Canopy Replacement Standard would
require planting three trees, the applicant would replant the
relocated tree and two new trees.
Following City approval of the Tree Protection and Preservation
Plan but prior to issuance of demolition, grading, or building
permits, the project applicant shall implement all pre-construction
tree protection measures identified in the approved plan (such as
mulching, pruning, irrigation, and installation of tree protection
fencing). The project arborist shall inspect and review the installed
tree protection measures and submit to the City a Verification of
Tree Protection Report, consistent with Tree Technical Manual
Section 2.15B. Throughout all construction activities, the project
arborist shall conduct routine inspections and monitoring to ensure
all pre-construction tree protection measures are being maintained
and all specific construction methods to minimize tree impacts are
monitoring additional replanting if
needed
years from the date of planting;
annual reports are filed
2.d
Packet Pg. 122
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 6
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
being implemented. The project arborist shall file a Monthly
Inspection Report, as defined in the Tree Technical Manual.
All retained, relocated, and newly planted trees shall be monitored
for a period of five years after planting/replanting to ensure they
have successfully established. Should any trees not survive, they
shall be replaced and monitored for a period of five years.
Mitigation Measures 7a and 7b (see Transportation section below)
Mitigation Measures 8a and 8b (see Noise section below)
AESTHETICS
Mitigation Measure 5a: Prior to issuance of building permits for
each construction phase, Castilleja School shall submit a lighting
plan that identifies the specific light fixtures to be used and their
proposed locations. The lighting plan shall also identify the
expected light levels within the property and at the property
boundaries. The lighting plans must demonstrate compliance with
the criteria identified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
18.23.030. This includes requirements such as spillover reduction;
use of high pressure sodium and metal halide as permitted light
sources; lighting limits of 0.5 foot-candle, as measured at the
abutting residential property line; designing interior lighting to
minimize nighttime glow; using low intensity lighting for building
exteriors, parking areas, and pedestrian ways; and directing
pedestrian and security lighting downward.
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
Prior to issuance of building
permits for each construction
phase – lighting plan submitted
Prior to issuance of certificate of
occupancy – verification lighting
installed in accordance with
approved plan
Lighting plans comply with Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.23.030
Installed lighting comports with
lighting plans
2.d
Packet Pg. 123
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 7
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure 6a: A protection plan shall be implemented
for the Administration/Chapel Theater building and the residence
at 1215 Emerson Street during proposed new construction and
renovation activities to prevent damage to these structures. A
clear and concise preservation protection plan shall be developed
to provide these details. The protection plan shall be prepared by
a qualified historic preservation specialist and shall be appended
to the final set of construction plans for each construction phase.
At a minimum, the protection plan shall include the following:
Protective fencing shall be installed approximately 15 feet
from the perimeter of the Administration/Chapel Theater
building and from the southern and eastern property lines
of the residence at 1215 Emerson Street, or a lesser
distance if recommended by a qualified historic
preservation specialist. All construction workers shall be
instructed to keep all people, materials, and equipment
outside of the areas surrounded by protective fencing. The
protective fencing shall consist of brightly-colored mesh
fencing at least four feet in height. The mesh shall be
mounted on six-foot tall poles, with at least two feet below
ground, and spaced a maximum of six feet apart.
Material and equipment delivery and stockpile areas shall
be identified on the protection plan, and shall be located
as far as practicable from the Administration/Chapel
Theater building and the residence at 1215 Emerson
Street.
If cranes are used to install buildings or building
components, no materials or structures shall be
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
Prior to issuance of grading,
demolition, and/or building permits
for each construction phase –
Protection plan submitted for City
review and approval
During all construction activity –
Protection plan implemented
Protection plan identifies location and
specifications for protective fencing,
equipment delivery and stockpile
areas, crane locations and usage
controls, demolition equipment and
control within 25 feet of the
Administration/Chapel building, and
dust control.
Known historic resources are not
damaged during construction
2.d
Packet Pg. 124
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 8
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
suspended above or within 30 feet measured horizontally
from the exterior walls of the Administration/Chapel
Theater building and the residence at 1215 Emerson
Street.
For demolition of the existing Classroom building, the
protection plan shall document the specific nature of
demolition activities that would occur on any portion of the
building that touches or is within 25 feet of the
Administration/Chapel Theater building and provide
recommendations for equipment usage and demolition
techniques that will avoid adverse effects to the
Administration/Chapel Theater building.
The protection plan shall prescribe measures for
containment of dust during demolition, excavation, and
construction. This may include wetting soils and materials
to prevent wind-blown dust; covering exposed materials,
soil, and unfinished buildings; and use of temporary
barriers to prevent any wind-blown dust from reaching
historic structures.
Mitigation Measure 6b: Prior to initiation of construction for each
construction phase, all construction crew members, consultants,
and other personnel shall receive project-specific Cultural
Resource Awareness training. The training shall be conducted in
coordination with qualified cultural resource specialists and shall
inform project personnel of the potential to encounter sensitive
archaeological material. In the event that archaeological resources
(sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction
activities for the proposed project, all construction work occurring
within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified
archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
Prior to commencement of ground
disturbing activities for each
Verification that Cultural Resource
Awareness training was provided to
all construction crew members,
consultants, and other personnel is
provided to the City through submittal
of training materials (videos and/or
handouts) and dated attendance logs
for each training session
If any cultural resources are
encountered, ground disturbance is
2.d
Packet Pg. 125
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 9
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find
and determine whether additional study is warranted. Prehistoric
archaeological deposits may be indicated by the presence of
discolored or dark soil, fire-affected material, concentrations of
fragmented or whole marine shell, burned or complete bone, non-
local lithic materials, or the characteristic observed to be atypical
of the surrounding area. Common prehistoric artifacts may include
modified or battered lithic materials; lithic or bone tools that
appeared to have been used for chopping, drilling, or grinding;
projectile points; fired clay ceramics or non-functional items; and
other items. Historic-age deposits are often indicated by the
presence of glass bottles and shards, ceramic material, building or
domestic refuse, ferrous metal, or old features such as concrete
foundations or privies. Depending upon the significance of the find
under CEQA (14 CCR 15064.5(f); PRC Section 21082), the
archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to
continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA,
additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological
treatment plan, testing, or data recovery may be warranted and
would be implemented if recommended by the qualified
archeologist.
construction phase – construction
crew training
Throughout all ground disturbing
activities – construction crew halts
work to allow for evaluation of any
discovered cultural resources
halted, the resource is evaluated,
and any treatment recommendations
made by a qualified archeologist are
implemented
TRANSPORTATION
Mitigation Measure 7a: Castilleja School shall implement the
proposed enhanced Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
plan (Appendix B) to reduce the average daily trips and maintain a
maximum peak hour trip volume. The measures currently listed in
the TDM plan are expected to reduce daily traffic by between 12
and 22 percent. Through the ongoing monitoring and reporting
described in this measure, Castilleja School and the City will
identify the effectiveness of the TDM measures and any need to
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
TDM plan is implemented during
construction and in perpetuity
Driveway vehicle count equipment is
installed prior to issuance of
certificates of occupancy
Throughout construction, driveway
counts and monitoring reports
2.d
Packet Pg. 126
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 10
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
modify their implementation and/or add new TDM measures
sufficient to:
maintain a maximum average daily trip count of 1,296
trips starting two years after construction of the Academic
building is complete and through all subsequent years,
maintain a maximum average daily AM Peak Hour trip
count of 440 trips, and
ensure that vehicle queues for each drop of location are
fully contained within the project site such that no cars are
queuing on or blocking the vehicle lane or the bike lane on
any adjacent public street.
Castilleja School shall conduct routine traffic monitoring and
submit monitoring reports to the City three times per year until the
school has reached its maximum enrollment for two consecutive
years and has attained the average peak hour and average daily
trip standards. After that time, only two monitoring reports per year
shall be required. As part of the monitoring, Castilleja shall install
traffic counting devices at each project site driveway and submit
the raw data along with a data summary and analysis in the
monitoring reports. The analysis shall also include reporting of
drop-off lane discharge rates, and the average and maximum
lengths of ingress and egress queues in the four 15-minute
increments prior to the first bell for each grade level (start of the
first class session of the day) and the 15-minute increment
following the first bell for the grade level(s) with the latest start
time each day.
Student enrollment at Castilleja School shall increase by no more
than 27 students in any academic year. In the period between
commencement of construction and attainment of the maximum
During construction – install
driveway vehicle count
equipment
In perpetuity beginning
during construction –
implement TDM plan,
conduct monitoring and
reporting, conduct active
traffic management
demonstrate that average AM peak
hour traffic volumes are 440 trips or
less, not including days on which
special events are held
Throughout construction and for two
years following completion of the
Academic building, three monitoring
reports are submitted to the City in
each academic year (generally every
3 months, beginning approximately 3
months after the first day of school
for that year)
Once full enrollment is reached for
two consecutive years and the
average peak hour and average daily
trip standards are achieved, two
monitoring reports are submitted to
the City in each academic year
(generally every 4.5 months,
beginning approximately 4.5 months
after the first day of school for that
year)
Beginning at the start of the third
academic year after completing the
Academic building, driveway counts
and monitoring reports demonstrate
that average AM peak hour traffic
volumes are 440 trips or less and
average daily traffic volumes are
2.d
Packet Pg. 127
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 11
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
enrollment level, if the peak hour standard is not achieved
additional TDM measures shall be implemented as follows:
1st report showing an average daily AM peak hour trip
count above 440 - add an additional TDM measure
2nd consecutive report showing an average daily AM
peak hour trip count above 440 – add a more intensive
TDM measure
3rd consecutive report showing an average daily AM peak
hour trip count above 440 - reduce enrollment by at least
5 students, or more as determined necessary by the City
to ensure attainment of the average daily AM peak hour
standard, in next admission cycle.
In the period between commencement of construction and two
years following completion of the Academic building, daily trip
counts shall be monitored and reported for informational
purposes.
Beginning two years following completion of the Academic
building, if the peak hour and daily trip standards are not
achieved, additional TDM measures shall be implemented as
follows:
1st report showing an average daily AM peak hour trip
count above 440 and/or average daily trip count above
1,296 - add an additional TDM measure
2nd consecutive report showing an average daily AM
peak hour trip count above 440 and/or average daily trip
count above 1,296 – add a more intensive TDM measure
1,296 trips or less, not including days
on which special events are held
If a monitoring report demonstrates
that the average AM peak hour and
average daily trip (when applicable)
standards were exceeded during that
monitoring/reporting period,
additional TDM measures are
implemented in the subsequent
monitoring/reporting period
If applicable standards are exceeded
in all three (or two, where applicable)
monitoring/reporting periods,
enrollment is reduced for the
following academic year
Active traffic management is
implemented as identified in the
Garage Circulation Plan, or
subsequent plans approved by the
City, during all drop-off and pick-up
periods and during special events
with more than 75 guests.
2.d
Packet Pg. 128
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 12
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
3rd consecutive report showing an average daily AM peak
hour trip count above 440 and/or average daily trip count
above 1,296 - reduce enrollment by at least 5 students, or
more as determined necessary by the City to ensure
attainment of the average daily AM peak hour and
average daily trip count standards, in next admission
cycle.
1st and/or 2nd reports in the subsequent year showing an
average daily AM peak hour trip count above 440 and/or
average daily trip count above 1,296 – implement more
intensive TDM measures
3rd report in the subsequent year showing an average
daily AM peak hour trip count above 440 and/or average
daily trip count above 1,296 – reduce enrollment in the
next admission cycle by at least 10% or more as
determined necessary by the City to ensure attainment of
the average daily AM peak hour and average daily trip
count standards.
Castilleja School shall conduct active traffic management as
identified in the Garage Circulation Plan (Figure 3-12), or
subsequent plans approved by the City, during all drop-off and
pick-up periods and during special events with more than 75
guests. This includes having 7 school staff members stationed
along the drop-off/pick-up queues to direct vehicle and pedestrian
movements into, within, and exiting the garage. Traffic entering or
exiting the project site driveways on Bryant Street shall be
restricted to right-turns; traffic exiting the parking garage onto
Emerson Street shall also be restricted to right-turns. Traffic
management staff shall direct vehicles to loop around the school if
they are approaching a project site driveway where there is a
2.d
Packet Pg. 129
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 13
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
queue that would not permit the vehicle to completely exit the
public right-of-way. As part of the traffic monitoring and reporting,
Castilleja shall instruct the traffic management staff to report any
excessive vehicle queues, safety concerns, or other concerns or
recommendations to improve safety and circulation to the
administration. These staff reports and Castilleja’s response to
each shall be summarized in the traffic monitoring reports.
As described in the TDM plan (Appendix B), Castilleja School
shall implement some or all of the following measures sufficient to
attain the average peak hour and average daily trip standards:
1. late afternoon shuttle departures
2. off-site drop-off/pick-up area
3. expanded carpool/trip planning program
4. additional off-site parking
5. parking/carpool incentives program for employees
6. alternative transportation information
7. bike tune-up day and on-site repair stations
8. Guaranteed Ride Home program
9. on-site car or bike sharing program
10. provide transit passes
11. mandatory ridesharing
12. other TDM measures developed by Castilleja in
coordination with the City of Palo Alto (City), including the
2.d
Packet Pg. 130
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 14
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
monitoring and enforcement provisions identified in
Appendix B.
In addition, Castilleja School shall modify the proposed enhanced
TDM plan to include the following
13. Educate staff, students, and families regarding the
importance of an efficient and safe student drop-off
operation to prevent excessive queuing in the garage.
14. Provide staff, students, and families with required drop-
off/pick-up and parking procedures to include that drop-off
and pick-up must occur in the garage unless there are
extenuating circumstances, daily parking for parents or
other community members attending meetings or other
activities onsite shall occur within the garage or on-site
surface parking lots, outside of special events.
15. Conduct ongoing monitoring of drop-off lane discharge
rates and ingress and egress queues.
16. If vehicle queues are causing spillover into the public right
of way on Bryant Street, modify the drop-off procedures
and TDM program to include greater staggering of bell
schedules or other strategies that would decrease vehicle
trips or otherwise spread out the number of peak hour
vehicle trips accessing the underground garage.
17. Provide bicycle safety education for students, parents,
and staff to encourage students and staff to ride bicycles
to and from school.
18. Host school-wide bicycle encouragement events (such as
competitions, incentives, and other fun events) to support
biking, walking, carpooling, and transit use so that the
2.d
Packet Pg. 131
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 15
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
school community understands that active transportation
is a community-held value.
Mitigation Measure 7b: Castilleja School shall maintain
vegetation within 40 feet of the school’s driveways onto public
streets such that vegetation is trimmed down to a height of less
than three feet and trees trimmed up so that nothing hangs below
a height of seven feet from the surface of the roadway. Vegetation
shall be trimmed no less once per month. Castilleja School shall
provide the City with evidence of a landscaping management plan
or active landscape maintenance contract annually. Castilleja
School and the City shall provide curb markings to prohibit on-
street parking within 35 feet of each driveway.
Implementation:
City of Palo Alto provide curb
markings
Castilleja School maintain
vegetation
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing: In perpetuity beginning
during construction
No vegetation within 40 feet of
school’s driveways onto public
streets is present between three feet
and seven feet from the surface of
the roadway
Evidence of landscaping
management plan or active
landscape maintenance contract is
submitted to the City annually
Curb markings are maintained at all
times
NOISE
Mitigation Measure 4a (see Land Use and Planning section above)
Mitigation Measure 8a: Prior to issuance of a building permit for
the outdoor pool, Castilleja School shall submit to the City a
technical analysis documenting the specific loudspeaker
equipment proposed for use at the pool, the locations and
positioning of speakers, and the likely noise levels for each of the
receptor locations evaluated in the Environmental Noise Study for
the proposed Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit
Amendment and Master Plan. The technical analysis shall
demonstrate that use of the loudspeaker would not generate noise
levels that are more than 6 dB greater than existing noise levels
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing: Prior to issuance of building
permit for pool
Technical analysis submitted to City
identifying specific loudspeaker
equipment and locations and
positions of speakers
Use of the loudspeaker does not
generate noise levels that are more
than 6 dB greater than existing noise
levels
2.d
Packet Pg. 132
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 16
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
Mitigation Measure 8b: Prior to issuance of demolition, grading
and/or building permits for each construction phase, Castilleja
School shall submit to the City a technical analysis of the noise
levels that could be generated during construction and
recommended measures to ensure that noise levels during
construction meet the City’s standards. This analysis must include
and be based on a list of the construction equipment proposed to
be used (including horsepower), a schedule for the use of each
piece of equipment during that phase, and the general location
where each piece of equipment would operate. Noise reduction
measures may include modifying the equipment list, restrictions
on the number of individual pieces of equipment that may be used
at one time, modifying the location of individual pieces of
equipment, providing shielding for individual pieces of equipment,
use of temporary noise attenuation barriers, and/or other
measures that are demonstrated to be sufficient to ensure that the
maximum noise level at the property boundary would remain at or
below 110 dB and increases in hourly noise levels at the property
boundary would not exceed 10 dBA above the ambient noise level
for two or more hours per day, more than five days per week, for a
period of 12 months or more.
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
Prior to issuance of demolition,
grading, and/or building permits for
each phase of construction –
construction noise analysis
submitted
Ongoing during construction –
noise control measures
implemented
Technical analysis of construction
noise levels and recommended noise
control measures submitted
Recommended measures
implemented sufficient to ensure that
the maximum noise level at the
property boundary would remain at or
below 110 dB and increases in hourly
noise levels at the property boundary
would not exceed 10 dBA above the
ambient noise level for two or more
hours per day, more than five days
per week, for a period of 12 months
or more
AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure 9a: Prior to issuance of demolition permits,
grading permits, or building permits for the proposed project, the
City of Palo Alto shall ensure that site plan notes include
requirements for the construction contractor to implement the
following Basic Construction Emission Control Measures. Visual
site inspections shall be conducted throughout construction to
ensure these measures are implemented appropriately:
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
Notes on site plans for each
construction phase include
requirements for construction
contractor to implement Basic
Construction Emission Control
Measures
2.d
Packet Pg. 133
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 17
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered two times daily.
Exposed surfaces include, but are not limited to parking
and staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads.
2. Haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material
off-site shall be covered.
3. Wet power vacuum street sweepers shall be used to
remove any visible trackout of mud or dirt onto adjacent
public roads at least once a day. Use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
4. Vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to shall be limited to a
maximum of 15 miles per hour.
5. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, and parking lots to be
paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In
addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible
after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6. Materials stockpiles shall be covered on days when they
are not accessed, including any day on which construction
does not occur.
7. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum
idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of
California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage
shall be provided for construction workers at all access
points.
8. All construction equipment shall be maintained and
properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s
Prior to issuance of demolition,
grading, or building permits – site
plans contain appropriate emission
control notes
Throughout construction – site
inspections
Emission control measures are
implemented throughout all
construction
2.d
Packet Pg. 134
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 18
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a
certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper
condition prior to operation.
9. The construction contractor shall post a publicly visible
sign with the telephone number and person to contact at
the City of Palo Alto regarding dust complaints. This
person shall respond and take corrective action within 48
hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 (see Hazards and Hazardous Materials section below)
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure 12a: Project design and construction shall
show compliance with and implement all of the recommendations
contained in the geotechnical investigation (January 2107) and
supplemental recommendations memorandum (March 2017)
prepared by Silicon Valley Soil Engineering or provide an
acceptable equivalent to these measures to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works Engineering in order to reduce hazards
related to expansive soils and the stability of soil and landforms.
These include but are not limited to:
1. the basement foundation system should use a
concrete mat slab with a minimum thickness of 12
inches and underlain by 6 inches of ¾-inch clean
crushed rock and waterproofed;
2. basement retaining walls shall be designed using a
pseudo-static force value of 2.71kips per lineal foot of
wall length acting at a distance of 0.6H from the
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
Prior to issuance of demolition,
grading, or building permits – site
plans reflect geotechnical
investigation and supplemental
memorandum recommendations
Prior to issuance of certificate of
occupancy – site inspections to
verify as built conditions
All recommendations contained in
the geotechnical investigation
(January 2107) and supplemental
recommendations memorandum
(March 2017) prepared by Silicon
Valley Soil Engineering, or
acceptable equivalents, are
implemented during construction
2.d
Packet Pg. 135
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 19
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
bottom of the wall, which shall be added to the lateral
active force for seismic loading condition,
3. basement retaining walls shall be waterproofed
consistent with the recommendations of the
geotechnical investigation and a waterproofing
consultant;
4. shoring shall be provided for trenches and excavation
in excess of five feet in depth;
5. a geotechnical engineer shall be retained to observe
and inspect all earthwork and grading;
6. within construction areas, organic materials shall be
stripped from the soil and the soil shall be scarified by
machine to a depth of 12 inches and thoroughly
cleaned of vegetation and other deleterious matter;
7. subgrade shall be compacted to not less than 90%
relative maximum density per ASTM D1557-12 at a
moisture content greater than 3% above the optimum
moisture provided that the subgrade meets
compaction and is determined to be stable under
construction equipment loading; and
8. a contingency dewatering plan shall be prepared that
provides for collection of any surface runoff water and
perched groundwater and use of the water as
approved by the City and consistent with the City’s
dewatering requirements, such as for on-site dust
suppression, street-sweeping, and other City
programs.
2.d
Packet Pg. 136
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 20
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
Mitigation Measure 12b: A discovery of a paleontological
specimen during any phase of the project shall result in a work
stoppage in the vicinity of the find until it can be evaluated by a
professional paleontologist. Any paleontological resource
discovered on site should be either preserved at its location or
adequately documented as a condition of removal. Should loss or
damage be detected, additional protective measures or further
action (e.g., resource removal), as determined by a professional
paleontologist, shall be implemented to ensure that the
information potential represented by the resource is retained.
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing: Throughout construction
Work is stopped within 100 feet of
any paleontological specimen
discovered during construction
Any discovered specimens are
evaluated by a professional
paleontologist
Recommended protective measures
or further action, as determined by
the paleontologist, are implemented
prior to resuming construction
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATION MEASURES
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If feasible, vegetation on the project
site shall be removed outside of the bird-nesting season. If the
start of site clearing, tree removal, or building demolition occurs
between February 1 and August 31, a pre-construction survey for
nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall
be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify the location of
nests in active use that were established prior to the start of
project implementation activities. The pre-construction survey
shall take place no more than 7 days prior to initiation of
construction. All trees and shrubs on the site and on adjacent
properties shall be surveyed, with particular attention to any trees
or shrubs that would be removed or directly disturbed. If an active
nest of a protected bird is found on site, the biologist shall, in
consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW), determine whether construction work would affect the
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing: Prior to issuance of
demolition, tree removal, and/or
grading permits for each
construction phase
Pre-construction surveys are
completed and submitted to the City
within 7 days of commencement of
construction activity if construction
begins between February 1 and
August 31
No construction occurs within 300
feet of active raptor nests.
Consultation with CDFW occurs prior
to construction if an active nest of a
protected bird is identified within the
project site
2.d
Packet Pg. 137
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 21
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
active nest or disrupt reproductive behavior. Criteria used for this
evaluation shall include presence of visual screening between the
nest and construction activities, and behavior of adult birds in
response to the surveyors or other ambient human activity. If
construction could affect the nest or disrupt reproductive behavior,
the biologist shall, in consultation with CDFW, determine an
appropriate construction-free buffer zone around the nest to
remain in place until the young have fledged or other appropriate
protective measures are taken to ensure no take of protected
species occurs.
If it is determined that construction will affect an active raptor nest
or disrupt reproductive behavior, then avoidance is the only
mitigation available. Construction shall not be permitted within 300
feet of such a nest until a qualified biologist determines that the
subject nests are no longer active.
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit or tree removal permit, the
City of Palo Alto (City) shall verify that pre-construction surveys
have been conducted within 10 days of the proposed start of
demolition. If active bird nests are present, the City shall verify that
CDFW has been consulted and either determined that
construction will not affect an active bird nest or that appropriate
construction-free buffer zones have been established or other
appropriate protective measures have been taken.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: No earlier than 30 days prior to
initiation of demolition activities, a pre-construction survey shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist (i.e., a biologist holding a
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) collection
permit and a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFW allowing
the biologist to handle bats) to determine if active bat roosts or
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Pre-construction surveys completed
and reports submitted to the City no
more than 30 days prior to demolition
If active roosts are found within 300
feet of the demolition activities,
CDFW is consulted and no
2.d
Packet Pg. 138
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 22
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
maternal colonies are present on or within 300 feet of the
demolition area.
Should an active maternity roost be identified, the roost shall not
be disturbed and demolition and construction within 300 feet of the
maternity roost shall be postponed or halted until the juveniles
have fledged and the roost is vacated, as determined by a
qualified biologist. Consultation with CDFW shall also be initiated.
Under no circumstance shall an active roost be directly disturbed.
If nonbreeding bat hibernacula are found on the project site, the
individuals shall be safely evicted under the direction of a qualified
bat biologist and with consultation with CDFW. These actions shall
allow bats to leave during nighttime hours, thus increasing their
chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential
predation during daylight.
If it is determined that demolition or construction will not affect
roosting behavior or disrupt a maternal colony, demolition or
construction may proceed without any restriction or mitigation
measure.
If it is determined that demolition or construction will affect an
active bat roost or disrupt reproductive behavior, then avoidance
is the only mitigation available. Under no circumstance shall an
active roost be directly disturbed. Demolition or construction within
300 feet shall be postponed or halted until the roost is naturally
vacated as determined by a qualified biologist.
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the City of Palo Alto (City)
shall verify that pre-construction surveys have been conducted
within 30 days of the proposed start of demolition. If bats are
present, the City shall verify that CDFW has been consulted and
either determined that construction will not affect an active bat
Timing: Prior to issuance of
demolition permits for each
construction phase
demolition occurs within 300 feet of
active roosts
Individuals within any nonbreeding
bat hibernacula are evicted in
compliance with recommendations
from a qualified biologist and in
consultation with CDFW
2.d
Packet Pg. 139
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 23
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
roost or disrupt a maternal colony, or that individuals in a
nonbreeding bat hibernacula have been safely evicted.
Due to regulations from the California Health Department, direct
contact by construction workers with any bat is not allowed.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the
project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of
Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been
conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the
requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs),
including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials
(ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be
carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead-
or asbestos-related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs
shall be disposed of properly. If PCBs are found, these materials
shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of
1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185)
and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition
plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary
abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act,
particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling,
for the removal of mercury switches, PCB-containing ballasts, and
refrigerants.
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
Prior to issuance of demolition
permits for each construction
phase – complete hazardous
materials building survey and
retain qualified contractor for
demolition and disposal if needed
During construction – ensure any
hazardous building materials are
handled and disposed of in
accordance with state and federal
regulations
Hazardous materials building survey
conducted by a qualified
environmental specialist
If LCMs and/or ACMs are identified,
demolition activities shall be
conducted by a trained and qualified
contractor and LCMs and ACMs are
disposed of properly
Any PCBs are managed in
accordance with the Metallic
Discards Act of 1991 (California
Public Resources Code, Sections
42160–42185) and other state and
federal guidelines and regulations
2.d
Packet Pg. 140
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 24
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
TOPICS FOR WHICH NO MITIGATION MEASURES ARE REQUIRED:
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Energy
Hydrology and Water Quality
Mineral Resources
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities/Service Systems
2.d
Packet Pg. 141
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 25
Castilleja School Project Construction MMRP Checklist
Table 2
Castilleja School Project Construction MMRP Checklist
Mitigation Measure Action City Verification Actions/Dates
ACTIONS REQUIRED BY CASTILLEJA PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
Mitigation Measure 4b Submit Tree Protection and Preservation Plan, implement all pre-
construction tree protection measures identified in the approved
plan, and submit Verification of Tree Protection Report for each
construction phase
Mitigation Measure 5a Submit lighting plan for each construction phase
Mitigation Measure 6a Submit historic resources protection plan for each construction
phase
Mitigation Measure 8a Submit technical analysis identifying specific loudspeaker
equipment, locations and positions of speakers, and anticipate noise
levels for nearby sensitive receptors
Mitigation Measure 8b Submit construction noise analysis and construction plans
demonstrating implementation of recommended noise control
measures for each construction phase
Mitigation Measure 9a Include notes on site plans requiring implementation of Basic
Construction Emission Control Measures for each construction
phase
Mitigation Measure 12a Submit site plans demonstrating compliance with all geotechnical
investigation and supplemental memorandum recommendations for
each construction phase
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 Complete pre-construction nesting bird surveys and submit to the
City within 7 days of commencement of construction activity if
2.d
Packet Pg. 142
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 26
Table 2
Castilleja School Project Construction MMRP Checklist
Mitigation Measure Action City Verification Actions/Dates
construction begins between February 1 and August 31 for each
construction phase
Consult with CDFW if an active nest of a protected bird is located for
each construction phase
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 Complete pre-construction roosting bat surveys City no more than
30 days prior to demolition for each construction phase
Consult with CDFW if active roosts are found within 300 feet of
demolition activities for each construction phase
Evict any individual bats within any nonbreeding bat hibernacula in
compliance with recommendations from a qualified biologist and in
consultation with CDFW
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 Complete hazardous building material survey and retain qualified
contractors for demolition and disposal if hazardous building
materials are identified
ACTIONS REQUIRED BY CASTILLEJA DURING CONSTRUCTION
Mitigation Measure 4b Conduct monthly tree inspections and submit Monthly Inspection
Report
Mitigation Measure 5a Install lighting in accordance with approved plan
Mitigation Measure 6a Implement historic resources protection plan
Mitigation Measure 6b Provide cultural resources awareness training to all construction
crew prior to beginning any ground disturbing activities
Ensure that construction crew halts work if cultural resource are
discovered until resources are evaluated by qualified archeologist
and any treatment measures are implemented
2.d
Packet Pg. 143
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 27
Table 2
Castilleja School Project Construction MMRP Checklist
Mitigation Measure Action City Verification Actions/Dates
Mitigation Measure 7a Install driveway vehicle count equipment
Mitigation Measure 7b Maintain vegetation within 40 feet of school’s driveways onto public
streets so that the area between three and seven feet (elevation)
from the roadway surface is clear
Mitigation Measure 8a Install loudspeaker in accordance with technical report
specifications; retain noise consultant to measure noise levels after
installation and submit report to City
Mitigation Measure 8b Implement construction noise control measures
Mitigation Measure 9a Implement air pollution emission control measures
Mitigation Measure 12a Implement all geotechnical investigation and supplemental
memorandum recommendations
Mitigation Measure 12b Stop work within 100 feet of any paleontological specimen
discovered during construction until they are evaluated by a
professional paleontologist and recommended protective measures
are implemented
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 Prohibit construction within 300 feet of any active raptor nests
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 Ensure any hazardous building materials are handled and disposed
of in accordance with state and federal regulations
ACTIONS REQUIRED BY CITY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
Mitigation Measure 4b Verify implementation of Tree Protection and Preservation Plan
Mitigation Measure 5a Verify that lighting comports with Municipal Code
Mitigation Measure 6a Verify that historic resources were not damaged, or require repairs if
damage occurred
2.d
Packet Pg. 144
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 28
Table 2
Castilleja School Project Construction MMRP Checklist
Mitigation Measure Action City Verification Actions/Dates
Mitigation Measure 7a Verify that driveway vehicle count equipment was installed and is
operational and calibrated
Mitigation Measure 7b Paint curbs to prohibit on-street parking within 35 feet of project site
driveways
Mitigation Measure 8a Verify pool loudspeaker noise levels
Mitigation Measure 12a Complete site inspections to verify as built conditions comport with
all geotechnical investigation and supplemental memorandum
recommendations
2.d
Packet Pg. 145
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 29
Castilleja School Project Operation MMRP Annual Checklist
Table 3
Castilleja School Project Operation MMRP Annual Checklist
Mitigation Measure Castilleja Action Timing City Verification Actions/Dates
ACTIONS REQUIRED FOR SPECIFIC DURATION
Mitigation Measure 4b Monitor all trees (retained,
relocated, newly planted) and
submit annual reports
Beginning at end of each
construction phase and
continuing for five years
Plant additional trees to replace
any that do not survive initial five-
year monitoring and monitoring
such trees for five years from the
date of planting
Beginning at the time that any
tree subject to monitoring is
shown to have died and
continuing for five years from the
date of planting
ACTIONS REQUIRED IN PERPETUITY
Mitigation Measure 4a Publish special events calendar At the beginning of each
academic year, with updates
each trimester
Submit parking plans to City Prior to onsite special events
Mitigation Measure 7a Implement TDM plan During all operation, including
during construction when school
is still operating
Submit monitoring reports Three times per year until full
enrollment reached and peak
hour and daily trip standards
achieved – generally every 3
months, beginning approximately
3 months after the first day of
school for that year
Thereafter two times per year -
generally every 4.5 months,
2.d
Packet Pg. 146
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 30
beginning approximately 4.5
months after the first day of
school for that year
Mitigation Measure 7a
(continued)
If standards are not achieved as
defined in Mitigation Measure 7a,
implement additional TDM
measures and reduce enrollment
Need for action to be determined
at end of each
monitoring/reporting period.
When additional TDM measures
are required, they shall be
implemented as soon as possible.
If enrollment reductions are
needed, they shall occur in the
next admission cycle.
Implement active traffic
management as identified in the
Garage Circulation Plan, or
subsequent plans approved by
the City
during all drop-off and pick-up
periods and during special events
with more than 75 guests
Mitigation Measure 7b Submit evidence of landscaping
management plan or active
landscape maintenance contract
Annually
Inspect no-parking curb markings
within 35 feet of site driveways
and report any need for repainting
to the City
Annually
Mitigation Measure 8a Maintain pool loudspeaker
equipment in accordance with
noise technical report
specifications and submit
evidence of inspection and any
repairs to City
Annually
2.d
Packet Pg. 147
This table includes additional limitations on the proposed size, hours and days for the Special Events. For informational purposes
only, the table includes illustrative examples of the Special Events. The Special Events listed are illustrative of the types of Special
Events that could occur, the specific Special Events may vary each Academic Year to address the instructional needs of existing and
future programs provided by the School.
Special Event Additional Limitations Illustrative Examples
Size Hours and Days
1. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Admissions Event
2. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Admissions Event
3. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Admissions Event
4. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Parent Meeting
5. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Parent Meeting
6. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Parent Reception
7. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Parent Reception
8. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Dances and Socials
9. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Upper School Play
10. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Admissions Event
11. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Parent Meeting
12. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Parent Meeting
13. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Student Dinner
14. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Student Movie Night
15. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Parent College Night
16. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Parent College Night
17. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Upper School Preview Night
18. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Alum Reception
19. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Parent College Night
20. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Athletics Reception
21. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Admissions Reception
22. Special Event up to 100 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Art Gallery Reception
23. Special Event up to 100 Guests Sa.: 8:00am-5:00pm Dance Rehearsal
2.e
Packet Pg. 148
24. Special Event up to 100 Guests Sa.: 8:00am-5:00pm Admissions Event
25. Special Event up to 100 Guests Sa.: 8:00am-5:00pm Admissions Event
26. Special Event up to 100 Guests Sa.: 8:00am-5:00pm Admissions Event
27. Special Event up to 100 Guests Sa.: 8:00am-5:00pm Admissions Event
28. Special Event up to 100 Guests Sa.: 8:00am-5:00pm Dance Rehearsal
29. Special Event up to 100 Guests Sa.: 8:00am-5:00pm Dance Rehearsal
30. Special Event up to 100 Guests Sa.: 8:00am-5:00pm Dance Rehearsal
31. Special Event up to 100 Guests Sa.: 8:00am-5:00pm Dance Rehearsal
32. Special Event up to 100 Guests Sa.: 10:00am-5:00pm Alum Reception
33. Special Event up to 100 Guests Sa.: 10:00am-5:00pm Alum Reception
34. Special Event up to 100 Guests Sa: 5:00pm-10:00pm Alum Reception
35. Special Event up to 100 Guests Sa.: 5:00pm-10:00pm Dances and Socials
36. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 8:00am-10:00pm Junior Senior Banquet
37. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Faculty Staff Party
38. Special Events up to 200 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Student/Parent Forum
39. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Parent Meeting
40. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Parent Meeting
41. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Festival of Learning
42. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Alum Reception
43. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm 8th Grade Promotion
44. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Summer Camp Opening Day
45. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Summer Camp Opening Day
46. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Summer Camp Opening Day
47. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Summer Camp Opening Day
48. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Summer Camp Opening Day
49. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Parent Meeting
50. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Parent Meeting
51. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Parent Meeting
52. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Admissions Info Session
53. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Upper School Play
2.e
Packet Pg. 149
54. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Upper School Play
55. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm 8th Grade Arts Showcase
56. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Global Investigator Celebration
57. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Global Investigator Info Meeting
58. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm DC Trip Info Meeting
59. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Global Week Community Evening
60. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Arts Showcase
61. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Dances and Socials
62. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Winter Concert
63. Special Event up to 200 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Vision & Voice Performance
64. Special Event up to 200 Guests Sa.: 8:00am-10:00pm Upper School Play
65. Special Event up to 200 Guests Sa.: 8:00am-5:00pm Admissions Testing
66. Special Event up to 200 Guests Sa.: 8:00am-5:00pm Admissions Testing
67. Special Event up to 200 Guests Sa.: 8:00am-5:00pm Admissions Testing
68. Special Event up to 200 Guests Sa.: 5:00pm-10:00pm Dances and Socials
69. Special Events up to 300 Guests M-F: 8:00am-10:00pm MS Swim Meet
70. Special Events up to 300 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Grandparents and Special Friends Day
71. Special Events up to 300 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Upper School Open House
72. Special Events up to 300 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Middle School Open House
73. Special Events up to 300 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Middle School Open House
74. Special Events up to 300 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Spring Music Concert
75. Special Events up to 300 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Middle School Explo!
76. Special Events up to 300 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Celebration of Sports
77. Special Events up to 300 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Dances and Socials
78. Special Events up to 300 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Dances and Socials
79. Special Events up to 300 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm New Parent Reception
80. Special Events up to 400 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Family Day
81. Special Events up to 400 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm C-STEam
82. Special Events up to 400 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Class Day
83. Special Events up to 400 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Dances and Socials
2.e
Packet Pg. 150
84. Special Events up to 400 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Arts Show Performance
85. Special Events up to 400 Guests Sa.: 5:00pm-10:00pm Arts Show Performance
This table includes additional limitations on the proposed size, hours and days for the Major Events. The Major Events will not
change in quantity or in the specific name of the event unless given written permission by the City of Palo Alto. A Major Event is
defined as events that bring almost all students and parents to the Castilleja campus.
Major Event Additional Limitations Event Names
Size Hours and Days
1. Special Event up to 700 Guests Sa: 5:00pm-10:00pm Back to School Night
2. Special Event up to 300 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Gator Gathering
3. Special Event up to 500 Guests M-F: 5:00pm-10:00pm Founder’s Day
4. Special Event up to 300 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Opening Day / Tie Ceremony
5. Special Event up to 700 Guests M-F: 8:00am-5:00pm Baccalaureate / Graduation
2.e
Packet Pg. 151
• Mitigation Measure 7a Castilleja School shall implement the proposed enhanced
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan (Appendix B) to reduce the average
daily trips rate per student and maintain a maximum peak hour trip volume. The
measures currently listed in the TDM plan are expected to reduce daily traffic by between
12 and 22 percent. Through the ongoing monitoring and reporting described in this
measure, Castilleja School and the City will identify the effectiveness of the TDM
measures and any need to modify their implementation and/or add new TDM measures
sufficient to:
• maintain a maximum average daily trip count of 1,296 trips rate per student of 2.4
trips starting two years after construction of the Academic building is complete 2027
and through all subsequent years,
• maintain a maximum average daily AM Peak Hour trip count of 440 average daily AM
Peak Hour trips and ensure that vehicle queues for accessing the below grade garage
each drop off location are fully contained within the project site such that no cars are
queuing on or blocking the vehicle lane or the bike lane on Bryant Street any adjacent
public street.
Castilleja School shall conduct routine traffic monitoring and submit monitoring reports
to the City three times per year until the school has reached its maximum enrollment for
two consecutive years and has attained the average peak hour and average daily trip rate
standards. At After that time, only two monitoring reports per year shall be required. As
part of the monitoring, Castilleja shall install traffic counting devices at each project site
driveway and submit the raw data along with a data summary and analysis in the
monitoring reports. The analysis shall also include reporting of drop-off lane discharge
rates, and the average and maximum lengths of ingress and egress queues in the four 15-
minute increments prior to the first bell for each grade level (start of the first class session
of the day) and the 15-minute increment following that the first bell for the grade level(s)
with the latest start time each day.
Student enrollment at Castilleja School shall increase by no more than 27 students in
any academic year. In the period between commencement of construction and two
years after completion of the Academic building, if the peak hour and daily trip rate
standard are is not achieved in a given academic year, no further enrollment increase
may occur in the subsequent academic year, and additional TDM measures shall be
implemented as follows:
• First report showing an average daily AM peak hour trip count above 440 - add an
additional TDM measure
• Second consecutive report showing an average daily AM peak hour trip count above
440 – add a more intensive TDM measure
2.f
Packet Pg. 152
• Third consecutive report showing an average daily AM peak hour trip count above 440
- reduce enrollment by at least 5 students, or more as determined necessary by the
City to ensure attainment of the average daily AM peak hour standard, in the next
admission cycle.
In the period between commencement of construction and two years following
completion of the Academic building, daily trip counts shall be monitored, and analysis of
the average daily trip counts shall be included in the monitoring reports for informational
purposes.
Beginning two years following completion of the Academic building, if the peak hour and
daily trip standards are not achieved, additional TDM measures shall be implemented as
follows:
• 1st report showing an average daily AM peak hour trip count above 440 and/or average
daily trip count above 1,296 - add an additional TDM measure;
• 2nd consecutive report showing an average daily AM peak hour trip count above 440
and/or average daily trip count above 1,296 – add a more intensive TDM measure;
• 3rd consecutive report showing an average daily AM peak hour trip count above 440
and/or average daily trip count above 1,296 - reduce enrollment by at least 5 students, or
more as determined necessary by the City to ensure attainment of the average daily AM
peak hour and average daily trip count standards, in next admission cycle;
• 1st and/or 2nd reports in the subsequent year showing an average daily AM peak hour
trip count above 440 and/or average daily trip count above 1,296 – implement more
intensive TDM measures; and
• 3rd report in the subsequent year showing an average daily AM peak hour trip count
above 440 and/or average daily trip count above 1,296 – reduce enrollment in the next
admission cycle by at least 10% or more as determined necessary by the City to ensure
attainment of the average daily AM peak hour and average daily trip count standards.
for a second consecutive year, enrollment shall be reduced by at least 10% based
on City staff review of the traffic monitoring reports.
If the peak hour and daily trip standards are not achieved for a second consecutive
year, enrollment shall be reduced by at least 10% based on City staff review of the
traffic monitoring reports.
Castilleja School shall conduct active traffic management as identified in the Garage
Circulation Plan (Figure 3-12), or subsequent plans approved by the City, during all
2.f
Packet Pg. 153
drop-off and pick-up periods and during special events with more than 75 guests. This
includes having 7 school staff members stationed along the drop-off/pick-up queues
to direct vehicle and pedestrian movements into, within, and exiting the garage.
Traffic entering or exiting the project site driveways on Bryant Street shall be
restricted to right-turns; traffic exiting the parking garage onto Emerson Street shall
also be restricted to right turns. Traffic management staff shall direct vehicles to loop
around the school if they are approaching a project site driveway where there is a
queue that would not permit the vehicle to completely exit the public right-of-way.
As part of the traffic monitoring and reporting, Castilleja shall instruct the traffic
management staff to report any excessive vehicle queues, safety concerns, or other
concerns or recommendations to improve safety and circulation to the
administration. These staff reports and Castilleja’s response to each shall be
summarized in the traffic monitoring reports.
As described in the TDM plan (Appendix B), Castilleja School shall implement some or
all of the following measures sufficient to attain the average peak hour and average
daily trip rate standards:
1. late afternoon shuttle departures
2. off-site drop-off/pick-up area
3. expanded carpool/trip planning program
4. additional off-site parking
5. parking/carpool incentives program for employees
6. alternative transportation information
7. bike tune-up day and on-site repair stations
8. Guaranteed Ride Home program
9. on-site car or bike sharing program
10. provide transit passes
11. mandatory ridesharing
12. other TDM measures developed by Castilleja in coordination with the City of Palo
Alto (City), including the monitoring and enforcement provisions identified in
Appendix B.
In addition, Castilleja School shall modify the proposed enhanced TDM plan to include
the following:
13. Educate staff, students, and families regarding the importance of an efficient and
safe student drop-off operation to prevent excessive queuing in the garage.
14. Provide staff, students, and families with required drop-off/pick-up and parking
procedures to include that drop-off and pick-up must occur in the garage unless
there are extenuating circumstances, daily parking for parents or other
community members attending meetings or other activities onsite shall occur
within the garage or on-site surface parking lots, outside of special events;
15. Conduct ongoing monitoring of drop-off lane discharge rates and ingress and
egress queues and of average daily trip counts on Bryant Street and Emerson
2.f
Packet Pg. 154
Street between Embarcadero Road and Churchill Avenue, and Kellogg Avenue
between Bryant and Emerson Streets;
16. If vehicle queues are causing spillover into the public right of way on Bryant Street
or Kellogg Avenue or the project-generated traffic volumes are substantially
increasing the TIRE Index rating for the identified roadway segments, modify the
drop-off procedures, allocations of traffic to each drop-off location, and TDM
program to include greater staggering of bell schedules or other strategies that
would decrease vehicle trips or otherwise spread out the number of peak hour
vehicle trips accessing each drop-off location and the traffic volumes on identified
roadway segments.
17. Provide bicycle safety education for students, parents, and staff to encourage
students and staff to ride bicycles to and from school; and
18. Host school-wide bicycle encouragement events (such as competitions,
incentives, and other fun events) to support biking, walking, carpooling, and
transit use so that the school community understands that active transportation
is a community-held value.
2.f
Packet Pg. 155
2.g
Packet Pg. 156
2.g
Packet Pg. 157
2.g
Packet Pg. 158
2.g
Packet Pg. 159
2.g
Packet Pg. 160