HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-19 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet_______________________
1. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
2. 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 ten (10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak from five (5) to three (3) minutes to accommodate a larger number of
speakers.
Planning & Transportation Commission
Special Meeting Agenda: January 19, 2022
Virtual Meeting
6:00 PM
****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY***
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833
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
bit.ly/MidPenwatchnow.
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. Visit bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project
plans and details.
TIME ESTIMATES
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the
meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,
to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may
be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best
manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.
Call to Order / Roll Call
6:00 PM – 6:05 PM
1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Planning and
Transportation Commission Meetings During Covid-19 State of Emergency
Oral Communications
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1
_______________________
1. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
2. 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 ten (10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak from five (5) to three (3) minutes to accommodate a larger number of
speakers.
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
City Official Reports 6:10 PM – 6:15 PM
2. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
Action Items 6:15 PM – 9:15 PM
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal.
All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.2,3
3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI JUDICIAL/LEGISLATIVE: Review of the Castilleja School's
Requested Conditional Use Permit and Variance per Council Direction March 29,
2021, and Review of a Draft Ordinance per Council Direction Amending Section
18.04.030 Regarding Definition of Gross Floor Area in the R1 Zone for Below Grade
Garages. Zone District: R-1(10,000). Environmental Review: The Final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) was Published July 30, 2020 and the Draft EIR was Published July
15, 2019
Approval of Minutes 9:15 PM – 9:20 PM
Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.2,3
4. December 8, 2021 Draft PTC Meeting Minutes
Committee Items
Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Agenda Items
Adjournment
1. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
2.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 ten (10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak from five (5) to three (3) minutes to accommodate a larger number of
speakers.
Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission
Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are:
Chair Ed Lauing
Vice Chair Doria Summa
Commissioner Bryna Chang
Commissioner Bart Hechtman
Commissioner Keith Reckdahl
Commissioner Giselle Roohparvar
Commissioner Carolyn Templeton
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. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
2. 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 ten (10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak from five (5) to three (3) minutes 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. Please read the
following instructions carefully.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
• 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.
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. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
https://zoom.us/join
Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499
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 # 13936)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/19/2022
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Planning
and Transportation Commission Meetings
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing
for Planning and Transportation Commission Meetings During
Covid-19 State of Emergency
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the use of teleconferencing under Government
Code Section 54953(e) for meetings of the Planning and Transportation Commission and its
committees due to the Covid-19 declared state of emergency.
Background
In February and March 2020, the state and the County declared a state of emergency due to
the Covid-19 pandemic. Both emergency declarations remain in effect.
On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act,
effective October 1, 2021, to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by
teleconferencing during a state of emergency without complying with restrictions in State
law that would otherwise apply, provided that the policy bodies make certain findings at
least once every 30 days.
AB 361, codified at California Government Code Section 54953(e), empowers local policy
bodies to convene by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency
under the State Emergency Services Act in any of the following circumstances:
(A) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and
state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social
distancing.
(B) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for
1
Packet Pg. 5
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the
emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or
safety of attendees.
(C) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and
has determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B) (B), that, as a
result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the
health or safety of attendees. (Gov. Code § 54953(e)(1).)
In addition, Section 54953(e)(3) requires that policy bodies using teleconferencing reconsider
the state of emergency within 30 days of the first teleconferenced meeting after October 1,
2021, and at least every 30 days thereafter, and find that one of the following circumstances
exists:
1. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the
members to meet safely in person.
2. State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to
promote social distancing.
1
Packet Pg. 6
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
Discussion
At this time, the circumstances in Section 54953(e)( 1)(A) exist. The Santa Clara County Health
Officer continues to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing,
and other social distancing measures, such as masking, in certain contexts. (See August 2, 2021
Order.) In addition, the California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational
Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of
Regulations, which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and
instruct employees about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including
physical distancing and other social distancing measures.
Accordingly, Section 54953(e)(1)(A) authorizes the City to continue using teleconferencing for
public meetings of its policy bodies, provided that any and all members of the public who wish
to address the body or its committees have an opportunity to do so, and that the statutory and
constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via
teleconferencing are protected.
To comply with public health directives and promote public safety, Palo Alto policy bodies
have been meeting via teleconference since March 2020. On September 27, 2021, the City
Council considered the format for future Council, committee, and Board and Commission
meetings. Council determined that beginning November 1, 2021, Council meetings would be
conducted using a hybrid format that allows Council Members and the public to decide
whether to attend in person, following masking and distancing protocols, or participate via
teleconference. Council directed that Council standing and ad-hoc committees and Boards
and Commissions would continue meeting via teleconference until January 2022. On
December 13, 2021, Council directed that Council committees and Boards and Commissions
would continue meeting via teleconference through February 2022.
Adoption of the Resolution at Attachment A will make the findings required by Section
54953(e)(3) to allow the continued use of teleconferencing for meetings of the Planning and
Transportation Commission and its committees.
Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information
Molly Stump, City Attorney Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director
(650) 329-2171 (650) 329-2167
Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing Under Government Code
Section 54953(e) for Meetings of Planning and Transportation Commission (DOCX)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
1
Packet Pg. 7
NOT YET APPROVED
Resolution No. ____
Resolution Making Findings to Allow Teleconferenced Meetings Under California Government
Code Section 54953(e)
R E C I T A L S
A. California Government Code Section 54953(e) empowers local policy bodies to convene
by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under the State Emergency
Services Act so long as certain conditions are met; and
B. In March 2020, the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a state of emergency
in California in connection with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic, and that state
of emergency remains in effect; and
C. In February 2020, the Santa Clara County Director of Emergency Services and the
Santa Clara County Health Officer declared a local emergency, which declarations were
subsequently ratified and extended by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, and
those declarations also remain in effect; and
D. On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act
to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency
without complying with restrictions in State law that would otherwise apply, provided that the
policy bodies make certain findings at least once every 30 days; and
E. While federal, State, and local health officials emphasize the critical importance of
vaccination and consistent mask-wearing to prevent the spread of COVID-19, the Santa Clara County
Health Officer has issued at least one order, on August 2, 2021 (available online at here), that continues
to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing and other social distancing
measures, such as masking, in certain contexts; and
F. The California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and
Health (“Cal/OSHA”) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations,
which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and instruct employees
about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing and other
social distancing measures; and
G. The Planning and Transportation Commission has met remotely during the COVID-19
pandemic and can continue to do so in a manner that allows public participation and transparency
while minimizing health risks to members, staff, and the public that would be present with in-
person meetings while this emergency continues; now, therefore,
1.a
Packet Pg. 8
NOT YET APPROVED
The Planning and Transportation Commission RESOLVES as follows:
1. As described above, the State of California remains in a state of emergency due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. At this meeting, the Planning and Transportation Commission has
considered the circumstances of the state of emergency.
2. As described above, State and County officials continue to recommend measures
to promote physical distancing and other social distancing measures, in some
settings.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That for at least the next 30 days, meetings of the Planning and
Transportation Commission and its committees will occur using teleconferencing technology. Such
meetings of the Planning and Transportation Commission and its committees that occur using
teleconferencing technology will provide an opportunity for any and all members of the public who
wish to address the body and its committees and will otherwise occur in a manner that protects the
statutory and constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting
via teleconferencing; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning and Transportation Commission staff liaison is directed to place
a resolution substantially similar to this resolution on the agenda of a future meeting of the Planning
and Transportation Commission within the next 30 days. If the Planning and Transportation
Commission does not meet within the next 30 days, the staff liaison is directed to place a such
resolution on the agenda of the immediately following meeting of the Planning and Transportation
Commission.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
Staff Liaison Chair of Planning and Transportation Commission
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
City Attorney Department Head
1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 13933)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 1/19/2022
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 Madina Klicheva
(Madina.Klicheva@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: January 19, 2021 PTC Meeting Schedule and Assignments (DOCX)
2
Packet Pg. 10
Planning & Transportation Commission
2022 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2022 Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Absences/Notes
01/12/2022 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
01/19/2022 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Special
01/26/2022 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
02/09/2022 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
02/23/2022 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting Regular
03/09/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
03/30/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
04/13/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
04/27/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
05/11/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
05/25/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
06/08/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
06/29/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
07/13/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
07/27/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
08/10/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
08/31/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
09/14/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
09/28/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
10/12/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
10/26/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
11/09/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
11/30/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
12/14/2022 6:00 PM TBD Regular
12/28/2022 6:00 PM Cancelled Cancelled 3 Days Before NYE
2022 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup)
January February March April May June
Doria Summa Bryna Chang Bart Hechtman Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Giselle Roohparvar
Giselle Roohparvar Cari Templeton Keith Reckdahl Giselle Roohparvar Doria Summa Bart Hechtman
July August September October November December
Bryna Chang Doria Summa Bart Hechtman Keith Reckdahl Cari Templeton Ed Lauing
Ed Lauing Keith Reckdahl Cari Templeton Ed Lauing Bryna Chang Keith Reckdahl
2.a
Packet Pg. 11
Planning & Transportation Commission
2022 Tentative Future Agenda
The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change:
Meeting Dates Topics
January 26, 2022 • Tenant Relocation Assistance Threshold
• ADU Code Changes to PAMC Chapter 18.09
Upcoming Items:
Topics
• Review of 2021 Comp Plan and Housing Element Progress Report
• Downtown In-Lieu Parking Ban
• Senate Bill 9 Permanent Ordinance
• 985 Channing Avenue: Preliminary Parcel Map to Remove Height Restriction
2.a
Packet Pg. 12
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 13898)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/19/2022
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Castilleja School CUP/Variance and Amend PAMC Chapter
18.04 GFA Definition
Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI JUDICIAL/LEGISLATIVE: Review of the
Castilleja School's Requested Conditional Use Permit and
Variance per Council Direction March 29, 2021, and Review of
a Draft Ordinance per Council Direction Amending Section
18.04.030 Regarding Definition of Gross Floor Area in the R1
Zone for Below Grade Garages. Zone District: R-1(10,000).
Environmental Review: The Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) was Published July 30, 2020 and the Draft EIR was
Published July 15, 2019
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission:
1. Conduct a public hearing.
2. Review the City Council’s motion on the project and provide direction to staff as
appropriate.
3. Continue the public hearing to a date uncertain.
Executive Summary
Castilleja School seeks to renovate its campus to modernize its buildings and increase
enrollment. The applicant (Castilleja School Foundation) filed an initial application to amend the
school’s Conditional Use Permit in 2016 and filed the Architectural Review application in 2019.
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) met
in 2020. In March 2021, the City Council held three public hearings on the project.
In its review, the City Council identified several significant project components that required
further study and refinement. The Council directed staff to explore a legislative amendment to
3
Packet Pg. 13
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
the City’s zoning code that would allow some below grade parking to be exempt from gross
floor area based on certain criteria. The Council expressed its interest in seeing a reduction to
the size of the underground parking garage; changes to the CUP conditions related to the
transportation demand management plan and phased student enrollment increases; improved
tree preservation efforts; and other changes detailed in this report. Accordingly, the Council
remanded the project back to the ARB and PTC.
The applicant has since made changes to the project including alternative parking layout
options to address the reduced size of the below grade parking structure and add more surface
parking. In one of the options, all but one protected tree is preserved or relocated on site, and
improvements were made to further limit encroachments into the tree protection zones. Staff
also re-evaluated existing and proposed floor area calculations and met with the applicant to
discuss changes in the transportation demand management plan.
This report is intended to bring the PTC and community up to date on the project, and present
changes that have been made since last reviewed by the City Council. Staff anticipates receiving
public feedback and PTC direction on any further adjustments that may be necessary. No action
is required at this meeting, though staff seeks the PTC’s direction on any topic areas that
require further analysis or project changes. The recommendation in this report is to continue
the project to a date uncertain.
Background
City staff created a website with relevant information pertaining to the project. It includes a
project description, access to prior staff reports, presentations and meeting minutes, project
plans, environmental documents, public correspondence, and archived City news updates. The
website is available at this address: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/Hot-
Topics/Castilleja-School. The most recent staff report1 and City Council minutes2 are available
online.
The proposed project, in summary, includes the phased demolition and construction of
academic buildings, construction of a new subterranean garage and increased student
enrollment. The existing fitness/athletic center and historic chapel/administration buildings will
remain. Two residential properties owned by Castilleja on Emerson Street are no longer part of
the project. To implement the project, the applicant must obtain Council approval of several
planning entitlements: architectural review, a variance, and conditional use permit.
Additionally, responsive to the Council’s motion, a parking adjustment is requested.
In March 2021, the City Council stated that a zoning text amendment should also be prepared.
Council determined that the below grade parking garage should count as gross floor area under
1 March 29, 2021 Council Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-
reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/2021/id-11180.pdf
2 March 29, 2021 Council Summary Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-
reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2021/03-29-21-ccm-summary-minutes.pdf
3
Packet Pg. 14
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
the City’s current zoning code, but, as discussed below, also directed an exemption if the
garage met a specific criterion. The City previously prepared an environmental impact report,
which found all environmental impacts, including traffic and construction related impacts, can
be reasonably mitigated. Staff does not anticipate that recent changes to the project will
require significant revisions or additions to this analysis.
The PTC in its review has authority to review and make recommendations on the conditional
use permit, including a comprehensive review of the proposed TDM plan, the variance, parking
adjustment, environmental impact report, and the Council-initiated text amendment. The ARB
has authority to make recommendations to the City Council on the architectural review
application, including various parking configurations, and make comments on the
environmental impact report.
The PTC last reviewed the project in November 20203 and voted 4-2 to recommend support for
the variance application and split its voting on the conditional use permit with a 4-2 vote on
Finding 1 and a 3-3 vote on Finding 2. The dissenting votes generally reflected a disagreement
that the project complied with the City’s zoning code, concerns about the proposed enrollment
increase, and impacts from special events.
During Council’s March 2021 hearings, individual Councilmembers provided guidance on areas
of the project that required refinement; most expressed some concerns with the subterranean
garage and the need to better preserve protected trees. Other items related to the PTC’s
review include Councilmember comments related to the TDM plan, satellite parking, special
events, overall enforcement, and operational conditions of approval, including possible limits
on students driving to the campus.
Below is the City Council’s motion and direction to staff and the ARB and PTC regarding the
project (items A, B, and H are subject to PTC oversight; items C, D, E and portions of B are
subject to ARB oversight):
A. Allow an enrollment increase starting at 450 students; direct Staff and the Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC) to identify a procedure to allow Castilleja to further
increase enrollment up to 540 students in phases, contingent on their verified
compliance with objective standards demonstrating “no net new trips” resulting from
the preceding enrollment limit, based on the Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Plan
Mitigation Measure 7a, and any additional TDM measures the City or Castilleja may find
necessary to achieve the “no net new trips” condition of approval;
3 November 18, 2020 PTC Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-
reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2020-agendas-minutes-and-staff-reports/ptc-
11.18-castilleja.pdf
November 18, 2020 PTC Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-
reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2020-agendas-minutes-and-staff-reports/ptc-
11.18.2020-bgh-revisions.pdf
3
Packet Pg. 15
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 4
i. Strengthen existing TDM protections, reporting requirements, and
penalties for failure to meet conditions of approval. Penalties should
include fees, suspension and reduction of enrollment and streamlining of
corrective actions to violations;
ii. To review increases in the number of students as a percentage of the
student population within bicycle distance and to further restrict student
driving and parking on campus, including consideration of prohibiting
driving by juniors;
iii. Evaluate a form of a TDM Oversight Committee; and
iv. Consideration by Staff and the PTC to allow reduction of required parking
based on a TDM;
B. Direct Staff and the PTC to review an underground parking facility alternative that
allows a maximum of 50 percent of the required on-site parking to be below grade
without counting against the project floor area. No more than 50 percent of the
required on-site parking may be located below grade;
i. Explore a Residential Parking Program (RPP) or alternative parking
strategies for the surrounding neighborhood that prohibits RPP permits
from being sold to Castilleja staff or students within the RPP district. The
school-side of the streets surrounding Castilleja (Emerson Street, Kellogg
Avenue, Bryant Street) shall be exempt from the RPP so Castilleja can
continue to park on those streets. Explore requiring Castilleja to cover the
expense of implementing the neighborhood RPP; and
ii. Castilleja’s parking restrictions will be fully enforced. Explore having
overflow parking located off-site and not located on residential streets;
explore shuttle services satellite lots to accommodate this parking need;
C. Direct Staff and Palo Alto’s Arborist to work with Castilleja to preserve as many
protected trees to reduce the loss of protected trees, on campus as can reasonably be
accommodated;
D. Evaluate phasing the construction of the new buildings to mitigate impacts associated
with construction and evaluate elimination of the need for a temporary campus to be
constructed on Spieker Field;
E. Remand the revised building proposal (including the reduction of 4,370 sq. ft.) to the
Architectural Review Board to reconsider the massing and the compatibility of the
design within the residential neighborhood context;
F. Evaluate 50 percent of the public art expenses going to the Public Art Fund;
G. Direct Staff to explore the legalities of having a maximum build-out;
H. Direct Staff and the PTC to evaluate 5 major events, and between 50 and 70 special
events with no Sunday events; and
I. Direct Staff to provide information on Conditional Use Permits from other private
schools in surrounding jurisdictions.
3
Packet Pg. 16
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 5
Discussion
The purpose of this meeting is to provide an update and receive feedback from the community
and Commission on the Castilleja project and specifically those components from the City
Council’s motion that fall within the PTC’s purview. The ARB will hold a meeting on December
2nd on aspects within their purview, and staff will provide an update to the PTC as appropriate.
A staff report to the ARB includes additional information not included in this report related to
five parking garage and surface parking options; a comprehensive third-party analysis of
existing and proposed gross floor area calculations; architectural revisions; information on
protected trees; and construction phasing. This report is available online and may be of interest
to the PTC for additional background and context:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-
minutes/architectural-review-board/2021/arb-12.02-castilleja.pdf.
Based on the ARB’s and PTC’s review, additional project modifications are anticipated, including
changes to draft documents presented to the PTC as part of this report, such as the
transportation demand management plan. This and other documents presented to the PTC are
intended to be drafts for discussion. The applicant has made changes to the project in response
to the City Council’s motion and staff has been engaged in that process and has updated the
project website when appropriate. Accordingly, these documents are not presented in final
form as recommendations to the PTC. Rather, staff seeks additional input from the Commission
where appropriate so additional refinements can be made and represented to the Commission.
It is anticipated this discussion may take place over a couple meetings before staff makes a
formal recommendation to the Commission.
The remainder of this report will focus on components of the City Council motion that fall with
the PTC’s purview.
Code Interpretation: Below Grade Parking Facilities
The PTC may recall when it reviewed the subject project previously that there was extensive
discussion regarding the application of the zoning code as it related to the subterranean
parking garage. Staff referred to this structure as a below grade parking facility, as opposed to a
garage. Parking Facility and Garage are both defined terms in the zoning code. Staff suggested,
to maintain consistency with an earlier non-residential project in the R-1 zone, that this feature
could be considered as akin to a basement and therefore exempt from gross floor area. The PTC
was split 3-3 on whether this was a correct application of the code.
The City Council did not agree with this interpretation and stated that the below grade parking
facility ought to be treated as an underground garage and not a basement and, therefore,
count toward gross floor area. On March 15th, the Council initiated a text amendment to clarify
this perspective in the code but also directed staff and the PTC to consider language that would
fully exclude or partially exclude floor area from a below grade parking garage.4 This direction
4 City Council Motion from March 15, 2021:
A. Treat the underground parking facility as an underground garage and not as a basement; and
3
Packet Pg. 17
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 6
was further refined with the Council’s March 29 motion (restated above) to exclude the portion
of the garage that contains fifty percent (50%) or less code-required parking spaces. Moreover,
specific to the Castilleja project, the Council directed that no more than 50% of the parking
spaces be permitted below grade, in an effort to reduce the size of the garage and minimize
construction-related impacts, including potential impacts to protected trees.
Text Amendment: Gross Floor Area Exemption for Below Grade Parking Facilities
Included with this report as Attachment A is a draft ordinance to effectuate the text
amendment described above. Staff narrowly drafted the provision such that it potentially only
applies to two properties: the subject property and another large parcel within the R-1 zone,
located at 3233 Cowper Street (Our Lady of the Rosary Church). Specifically, this ordinance
would only apply to below grade parking facilities in the R-1 zone district that are accessory to a
non-residential use; located on a parcel greater than six acres; and where the parcel contains a
listed historic resource. Based on these criteria, only Castilleja School currently meets these
requirements; the other property does not currently contain a listed historic resource. It is
unlikely this code provision will have a meaningful benefit to the property on Cowper Street
and staff does not anticipate it being used for a future redevelopment of that site, but if the
PTC were interested, the draft ordinance could be further refined to expand or narrow the
qualifying criteria.
The proposed text amendment expressly identifies below grade parking facilities in the R1, R2
and RMD zoning districts as included in gross floor area calculations. It then provides an
exception from gross floor area if the below grade parking facility has 50% or less code-required
parking spaces and meets other qualifying criteria discussed above. The ordinance as drafted
would count the entire below grade parking facility toward gross floor area if the structure had
more parking spaces than 50% of the code required parking spaces in the garage. The proposed
text amendment also clarifies that this 50% threshold is calculated using the base code required
parking spaces, before any parking reductions.
The PTC is requested by the City Council to consider the draft ordinance. Staff welcomes any
feedback and can make refinements as appropriate. No action on the draft ordinance is
required at the subject meeting.
Castilleja School Enrollment
The City Council asked staff and the PTC to identify a procedure that would allow Castilleja to
increase enrollment up to 540 students from a starting enrollment of 450 students, contingent
on their verified compliance with a requirement for “no net new trips,” and other TDM
measures. The PTC’s previously recommended conditions of approval (COA) included such a
procedure prior to phased enrollment increases of 25 students. As a reminder, the PTC’s
recommended COA 4.e stated:
B. Return to Council with an alternative text change counting all the underground garage as floor area;
i. Return to Council with an alternative of not counting floor area or partially counting floor area; and
ii. Evaluate the implication of the text change on other properties in R-1 zones.
3
Packet Pg. 18
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 7
e. No enrollment increase may occur unless the School has achieved the
performance standards of Condition #22 [including no net new trips for AM Peak
and Average Daily Trip totals] for the preceding three reporting periods. For
example, the ability to increase enrollment for the 2023-2024 academic year will
require review, in early 2023, of one reporting period from the 2022-2023
academic year and two reporting periods from the 2021-2022 academic year.
If the PTC believes this procedure is responsive to the Council’s motion, it may recommend that
it remain unchanged. Alternatively, the PTC may wish to discuss modifications to the
enrollment schedule and verification procedure, such as a slower rate of increase than 25
students or a longer verification period than two academic years.
Transportation Demand Management Plan
Staff continues to work with the applicant on an updated TDM plan that stipulates a number of
requirements Castilleja will need to comply with to increase student enrollment beyond 450
students. This is a fairly comprehensive TDM plan and at this time does not include all of staff’s
anticipated inclusions related to corrective action, penalties and enforcement. However, staff
wanted to present this document to the public and Commission at this stage to receive initial
feedback and return with a final draft for PTC recommendation to Council.
The TDM plan includes objective standards that Castilleja will need to comply with to increase
enrollment and avoid specific penalties. The no net new trips provision recommended by the
PTC last year remains a key component of the TDM plan as does the limit on AM peak trips.
Specifically, Castilleja will need to demonstrate that it does not exceed 440 AM Peak trips as
measured daily with permanently installed driveway counters. Castilleja must also ensure it
does not exceed 1,294 average daily trips (ADT) as measured over a 30 day or calendar month
period. Any violation of the daily AM peak trips and monthly ADT will be considered its own
discrete violation, subject to recurring fines and fee escalation as provided in the City’s
municipal fee schedule. Moreover, in addition to financial penalties, the revised draft TDM plan
shifts the authority away from the applicant and to the City to determine specific trip reduction
measures that may be needed to bring Castilleja back into compliance with any provision. This
analysis and determination would occur after each violation. Examples of the type of measures
that could be implemented include limits on students that may drive to campus, expanding
Castilleja’s shuttle program, adding a Guaranteed Ride Home program, and subsidizing
employee transit fares.
When this project returns to the PTC, staff will update the TDM plan and provide a specific
penalty fee structure with parameters for escalating fees and the amounts that could be
assessed for various violations.
3
Packet Pg. 19
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 8
A suspension or reduction in student enrollment remains a corrective action. The PTC and City
Council previously expressed concern that enrollment reduction5 did not present itself as a
timely remedy to what may be an immediate concern. The above referenced changes to the
TDM plan and greater specificity of financial penalties are intended to bring the corrective
action closer to the violation. However, staff welcomes additional feedback from the
Commission as to other measures that should be included in the TDM plan or as conditions of
approval. The draft TDM plan is available online:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-services/new-
development-projects/1310-bryant-street/castilleja-tdm-operations-manual-updated-
2021.pdf#page=3.
TDM Oversite Committee
The City Council in its motion included consideration of a TDM oversight committee. A
conceptual approach put forth by the applicant and included in the draft TDM plan is one that
includes students, faculty and staff to encourage campus attendees to participate in TDM
programs. Staff supports this concept but also anticipates it may fall short of the Council’s
intent. Based on staff’s understanding, the oversight committee was intended to ensure
Castilleja remained in compliance with the TDM plan and based on the Council’s dialogue, may
include community members.
Staff does not have any objection to the applicant’s proposed approach and supports its
retention in the TDM plan. The PTC is encouraged to discuss whether this approach is sufficient
or provide direction accordingly. However, it is anticipated that staff will have sufficient
oversight of the TDM plan with a condition previously presented to the PTC and City Council
that requires Castilleja to place a replenishable deposit that funds City’s enforcement efforts.
City staff participation in a TDM oversight committee is redundant and not supportable based
on current staffing levels.
Mitigation Measure 7a
This subheading is included in the report because it was mentioned in the City Council’s motion.
There has been no change to the language in this mitigation measure though some of the
provisions have been strengthened or expanded upon in the draft TDM plan and through
conditions of approval. Staff will return at a future hearing with draft conditions of approval
and crosswalk the mitigation measures to conditions of approval, as appropriate. Community
and commissioners interested in refreshing their memory on the provisions of Mitigation
Measure 7a can review that information online:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-
manager-reports-cmrs/2021/id-11180.pdf#page=65.
Reduced Parking Requirement
5 Existing students would not be impacted by an enrollment reduction. The next incoming class size would be
reduced by an amount determined by the City to address a persistent problem meeting AM Peak or ADT
thresholds.
3
Packet Pg. 20
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 9
The City Council recognized that a reduced parking garage may result in fewer on-site parking
spaces at Castilleja and directed staff and the PTC to consider a parking reduction based on a
robust TDM plan. While the TDM plan is focused on trip reduction to the subject property, its
implementation is anticipated to also result in the need for fewer on-site parking spaces.
Concerned that the proposed increase in enrollment may result in school-related intrusions into
adjacent residential neighborhoods, the Council also expressed a need for parking restrictions
to be fully enforced and asked that overflow parking located off-site (and not located on
residential streets) be explored, as well as incorporation of shuttle service to satellite lots as
needed.
In response to the Council’s deliberation, the applicant proposed five parking options. These
site planning and parking considerations fall within the ARB’s purview and are detailed in their
December 2 ARB staff report.6 Four of these options, due to the reduced garage size, have
fewer on-site parking spaces than previously considered and corresponding parking reductions
ranging from nine percent (9%) up to 20%. The parking option supported by staff (Option E)
results in a 14.4% reduction. The provisions related to parking reductions are set forth in Palo
Alto Municipal Code section 18.52.050, which authorizes a maximum 20% reduction. In
accordance with this code section, no parking reduction may be granted that will create an
undue impact on existing or potential uses adjoining the site or in the general vicinity, and will
be commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the development, including for
visitors and accessory facilities.
To help inform decision-makers in their consideration of the parking reduction, staff requested
the applicant submit a parking demand study. Staff recommends the Commission review this
report which is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-
amp-development-services/new-development-projects/1310-bryant-
street/castilleja_parking_study_2021221_clean.pdf In summary, the original project presented
to the PTC and City Council, without a parking reduction – and at a maximum enrollment of 540
students, shows a minor shortfall of about 10 parking spaces during peak parking demand. For
parking layout Option E, which includes a 14.4% parking reduction, Castilleja is anticipated to be
at or near peak parking demand capacity with an enrollment at 450 students (the baseline
enrollment being considered by the City Council). This conclusion is based on peak parking
demand and the availability of about 143 parking spaces; 89 on-site (with Option E) and 54
street parking spaces immediately adjacent to the Castilleja.7 As enrollment increases to a
maximum of 540 students, there is a shortfall of about 30 parking spaces. An excerpted parking
supply / parking demand chart is provided below.8
6 ARB Staff Report, Dated December 2, 2021: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-
reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2021/arb-12.02-castilleja.pdf#page=5
7 Included in the City Council’s motion from March 29 is consideration of a concept that would allow street parking
spaces adjacent to Castilleja’s property to count toward available parking; this is consistent with an informal
understanding between Castilleja and area residents.
8 The parking totals presented in the chart do not reflect the total parking spaces provided for in Option E, which
was prepared after the parking demand report was prepared. Parking layout Option E anticipates 89 on-site
parking spaces (and 54 street parking spaces).
3
Packet Pg. 21
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 10
The parking demand study illustrates one reason why the applicant proposed a larger parking
garage. With Council’s direction for a smaller garage, there are fewer spaces available to
accommodate the maximum enrollment of 540 students. As has been expressed by many in the
community, increased student enrollment without sufficient parking is anticipated to result in
more school-related parking intrusions into the surrounding neighborhood. This can be offset
to some degree by limiting the number of students that can drive to Castilleja, such as seniors
only or a subset of seniors as determined through a lottery process or other means, or with an
off-site satellite parking facility that makes up for the shortfall in parking demand as enrollment
increases. The existing off-site parking facility used by Castilleja at 1140 Cowper through a
month-to-month arrangement with First Presbyterian Church does not meet the Council’s
direction to explore satellite parking on a non-residential street.
It is important to also note that the chart above and the analysis in the parking demand study
do not take into consideration a reduction in parking demand that will necessarily be associated
with implementation of the TDM plan. In other words, while the chart shows a shortfall of 30
parking spaces, based on the analysis and incorporation of the TDM plan, the actual shortfall is
expected to be much lower.
Staff is still working through options and will propose as draft conditions of approval and
updates to the draft TDM plan measures that address the peak parking demand shortfall that
3
Packet Pg. 22
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 11
results from an increase in student enrollment and availability of on-site (and adjacent street)
parking. Staff welcomes further guidance and direction from the PTC on other approaches to
minimize these impacts.
Residential Preferential Parking District
To address school-related parking intrusions into adjacent residential neighborhoods, the City
Council directed staff to explore the possibility of a residential preferential parking (RPP) district
that excludes Castilleja staff or students. The Council motion indicates that on-street parking
spaces on the school side of Emerson, Bryant and Kellogg would be exempt from the district, so
Castilleja could continue to park at those locations. Moreover, if an RPP is formed, Council
indicated an interest that Castilleja cover the cost of implementing the program.
The procedures to establish a RPP district are set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter
10.50.9 There have been no requests to initiate a district around Castilleja school. A survey in
2018 for the possible formation of a district that extended from Embarcadero Avenue to
Oregon Expressway and between Middlefield Road and Alma Street received little support.
Since the outset of the subject application, staff has heard from some neighbors of their
interest in a RPP district, but the support for such a program does not seem to be widespread.
While the City Council could initiate a RPP district it seems an unlikely pursuit, if there is
insufficient neighborhood support.
There is a considerable amount of staff time needed to establish a RPP district including
community outreach: initial petition, surveys, and public meetings; sign design, fabrication and
installation; and permit distribution. Other ongoing costs include annual permit orders and
shipping, a parking enforcement officer and management oversight, and program management
by the permit vendor and City staff. A rough estimate of one-time start-up and first year
implementation costs for a hypothetical district is about $60K with estimated revenue
collection less than $30K. To be responsive to the City Council’s motion, staff is researching the
feasibility of requiring Castilleja to cover the initial one-time expenses and/or operational costs
if a district is successfully initiated following implementation of the requested discretionary
entitlements.
As an alternative to a parking district, the City could also impose other time of day parking
restrictions that would limit the number of Castilleja staff and students parking in the
neighborhood. However, such regulations would also impact area residents who would be
required to ensure their vehicles similarly complied with any posted restrictions. Staff
welcomes the PTC’s feedback on this topic and will eventually be interested in a
recommendation to Council on whether any action should be taken in this regard.
Public Art Funds
9 PAMC Chapter 10.50 Residential Preferential Parking Districts:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-68425
3
Packet Pg. 23
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 12
The City Council motion includes a suggestion for the applicant that fifty percent (50%) of the
public art expenses be directed toward the City’s public art fund. The City’s Public Art for
Private Developments is regulated by Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.61.10 The
regulations specify that the developer may choose to satisfy the requirement with a qualifying
on-site installation or through payment of an in-lieu fee to the Palo Alto Public Arts Fund. In
conversation with the applicant’s representative, there was no initial objection to this request.
It is anticipated that this would get resolved when hearings are scheduled before the City
Council next year. No action from the PTC on this topic is required at this time.
Special Events
The PTC may recall its own discussion regarding Castilleja’s special events and the different
perspectives held by the City and the applicant regarding the number and intensity of special
events permitted at the school.11 The subject conditional use permit, if approved, is an
opportunity to provide more clarity as to what is expected in the future. When the PTC last
considered this project, staff recommended a total of 70 special events during the academic
year compared to the applicant proposed 90 events. The PTC in its review recommended 74
special events to the City Council in response to the applicant’s concerns that further
reductions would impact its academic, social and programming interests.
The City Council in its review directed staff and the PTC to evaluate five major events and
between 50 and 70 special events with no Sunday events.
Sunday events were already prohibited in the staff and PTC recommended draft conditions of
approval to Council. The five major events that take place annually at Castilleja include: Back to
School Night, Gator Gathering, Founder’s Day, Opening Day, and Graduation. Three of these
events are evening events (5 pm to 10 pm) of which one is on a Saturday; the remaining two
take place on a weekday, 8 am to 5 pm. Major events are regarded as events that bring almost
all students and parents to the Castilleja campus. In addition to these five events, the City
Council requests re-consideration and possible refinement to the maximum number of
additional events, between 50 and 70 events.
Castilleja provided an updated list of special events starting on page 2 of the following linked
document: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-
services/file-migration/castilleja/2021/15.pdf. Castilleja identifies the special events that would
be eliminated if the school were limited to 50 special events (plus 5 major events) each
academic year. These events generally relate to admission tours, speaker events, athletic
events, holiday or social events, and other program-related activities. Castilleja maintains that
further reductions to the number of special events would be impactful to its academic, social
10 PAMC Chapter 16.61 Public Art for Private Developments:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-75112
11 PTC Staff Report, Dated November 11, 2020, Link to Discussion Regarding Special Events:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-
transportation-commission/2020-agendas-minutes-and-staff-reports/ptc-11.18-castilleja.pdf#page=10
3
Packet Pg. 24
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 13
and programing needs. Based on staff’s earlier analysis and in response to Council’s direction,
staff recommends the school be limited to the five major events and 70 other special events
during the academic year. After receiving public testimony on this topic and reviewing the
linked list of events, the PTC can direct staff to draft conditions approval that it believes is
responsive to the Council’s direction and that will minimize event-related impacts to the
surrounding neighborhood while balancing Castilleja’s interests.
CUP Conditions and Conditions from Comparable Bay Area Schools
This report does not include any draft conditions of approval. The PTC and community can
access the most recent list of conditions from the last City Council report in March. It is staff’s
intent to update the list of conditions after the ARB and PTC have sufficient opportunity to
review updated application materials and provide direction to staff. The updated conditions of
approval will be presented at a future noticed public hearing. Similarly, consistent with the
Council’s motion, staff will also collect information on other private schools in surrounding
jurisdictions. The applicant has provided an initial list based on its research, which is included in
the link most recently referenced above. Staff anticipates providing this information about
other private schools the next time the PTC considers this application.
Next Steps
The ARB and PTC are concurrently reviewing aspects of the subject application. Based on
feedback received and direction provided, staff will return with updated materials with the
intent to begin to refine recommendations that are responsive to the City Council’s motion. The
timing of the next PTC hearing will depend on the extent of the direction/feedback received,
the applicant’s ability to make any changes, and staff time needed to analyze project revisions
and prepare another report. Future meetings will be noticed in accordance with the municipal
code.
Environmental Review
An environmental impact report and mitigation monitoring and reporting program were
prepared for this project and shared with the City Council. This is the link
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/Castilleja-
Environmental-Documents to the environmental documents webpage for the project.
Depending on direction received from the ARB and PTC, staff and consultants will update the
EIR as needed prior to scheduling hearings before the City Council.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper
and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least
ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post
on November 26, 2021, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred
on November 22, 2021, which is 16 days in advance of the meeting.
3
Packet Pg. 25
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 14
Additionally, staff maintains an email list of individuals that have expressed an interest in the
project. Staff notified those recipients of the subject hearing a month in advance.
Public Comments12
As of the writing of this report, several public comments were received. All letters to the PTC
will be forwarded to the PTC. The public comments to the ARB, PTC and City Council related to
the upcoming hearings will be uploaded to this page:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-
Planning/Pending-and-Approved-Projects/Approved-Projects/Castilleja-School/Castilleja-
School-Public-Comments.
Report Author & Contact Information PTC Liaison & Contact Information
Amy French, Chief Planning Official Rachael Tanner, AICP, Assistant Director
(650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2167
Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Draft Ordinance Amending Definition of Gross Floor Area (PDF)
12 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: ptc@cityofpaloalto.org
3
Packet Pg. 26
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
1
0160060_20211130_ay16
Ordinance No.____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 18 (Zoning) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend the Gross Floor Area Definition for Low
Density Residential Zones
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Subsection (a)(65) (Gross Floor Area) of Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Chapter
18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is amended to
read as follows (additions underlined and deletions struck-through; omissions noted with [. . .]
represent unchanged text):
(a) Throughout this title the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed in this
section.
[. . .]
(65) “Gross floor area” is defined as follows:
[. . .]
(C) Low Density Residential Inclusions and Conditions: In the RE and R-1 single- family
residence districts and in the R-2 and RMD two-family residence districts, “gross floor
area” means the total covered area of all floors of a main structure and accessory
structures greater than one hundred and twenty square feet in area, including covered
parking and stairways, measured to the outside of stud walls, “(C) Low Density Residential
Inclusions and Conditions: In the RE and R-1 single- family residence districts and in the
R-2 and RMD two-family residence districts, “gross floor area” means the total covered
area of all floors of a main structure and accessory structures greater than one hundred
and twenty square feet in area, including covered parking and stairways, measured to the
outside of stud walls, including the following:
[. . .]
(iii) Carports and, garages, and below grade parking facilities, except as excluded
in subsection (a)(65)(D)(viii), shall be included in gross floor area.
[. . .]
(D) Low Density Residential Exclusions: In the RE and R-1 single-family residence districts
and in the R-2 and RMD two-family residence districts, “gross floor area” shall not include the
following:
3.a
Packet Pg. 27
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
2
0160060_20211130_ay16
[. . .]
(viii) Below-grade parking facilities that: (1) are accessory to nonresidential uses;
(2) are located on a parcel that is six acres or greater; and (3) are located on a
parcel that contains a listed historic resource; and 4) do not provide more than 50
percent of the base required on-site vehicle parking shall be excluded from the
calculation of gross floor area. A below grade parking facility that does not meet
all of these criteria shall be included in the calculation of gross floor area in its
entirety.
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent
with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is
hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section,
subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard
to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3), 15301, 15302 and 15305 because it
constitutes minor adjustments to the City’s zoning ordinance. As such, it can be seen with certainty
that the proposed action will not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
3.a
Packet Pg. 28
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
3
0160060_20211130_ay16
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Planning and
Development Services
3.a
Packet Pg. 29
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 13940)
Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 1/19/2022
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: December 8, 2021 Draft Meeting Minutes
Title: December 8, 2021 Draft PTC Meeting Minutes
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting
minutes.
Background
Draft minutes from the December 8, 2021 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
meetings were made available to the Commissioners prior to the January 19, 2021 meeting
date. The draft PTC minutes can be viewed on line on the City’s website at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Planning-and-
Transportation-Commission-PTC/Previous-PTC-Agendas-Minutes
4
Packet Pg. 30