HomeMy WebLinkAbout1095-Channing-ID-3333
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3333)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 12/17/2012
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: 1095 Channing CUP Approval
Title: Public Hearing: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action for a
Conditional Use Permit Amendment Allowing the Operation of a New Pre-
Kindergarten Program Within an Expanded Building and an After-School Day
Care Program Associated with an Existing Private School (K-8 Program) at
1095 Channing Avenue.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends Council approve the attached Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A)
approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), modifying the existing CUP for the St. Elizabeth
Seton School to allow the establishment of a pre-school program in an existing K-8 private
school, to be located within a previously approved building designed to house Kindergarten and
Pre-K classroom and after school day-care program activities.
Executive Summary
The City Council pulled this item from the November 5, 2012 Consent Calendar and scheduled it
as a public hearing item, in response to a neighbor’s comments about her concern regarding
the fence solution along the Church driveway, noting that the Church had suddenly changed
the placement of the fence with respect to the surveyed property line. Her survey and fence
concerns and the applicant’s response are described in this report.
The requested Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would amend the existing operations of a private
Catholic school to add a new Pre-Kindergarten program. The Pre-Kindergarten program would
have the same school hours as the existing school, which also features pre- and after-school
day care for all school students. The school is located in a residential zone, primarily accessed
from Channing Avenue and bordered by single-family homes. The school CUP has been in place
for decades and amended over time, and the number of students enrolled in the school has
City of Palo Alto Page 2
varied over time because there was no stated limit to the number of students in previous CUPs
for the site. The total number of students would be limited to 315 students per this CUP, as
clearly stated in the CUP documents and during the staff presentation to the Planning and
Transportation Commission on June 13, 2012.
The pre-K and Kindergarten students would be housed in the same building. The building is
2,423 square feet larger than the modular building it will replace; the building was approved in
July 2012 via the Architectural Review (AR) process and there was no appeal of the AR decision.
The associated site improvements include restriping of an existing parking lot to provide 44
parking spaces, an increase of four spaces from what currently exists on the site. The existing
circulation patterns of drop-offs before and after school would be unchanged but, because of
the new pre-K and associated after school pre-K program, the number of vehicles circulating on
the site would increase. The hours of the Pre-K program are consistent with the existing hours
of the school, including the after-school hours.
After two hearings, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) voted 4-1-1-1 to
recommended approval, subject to an additional requirement pertaining to the height, funding
and location of a perimeter fence. A meeting was held with neighbors, staff and the applicant
subsequent to the October 3, 2012 PTC meeting, resulting in individual fence solutions
appropriately tailored to each property and ensuring preservation and enhancement of existing
screen vegetation. The solutions are described further in the Discussion section. Neighbors’
concerns about pick-up pattern, associated noise pollution, and a cap on the student number
were expressed to the PTC. On October 22, 2012, the neighbor requesting the hearing (Ms. Rita
Vrhel) asked that Council pull the item off Consent to address her remaining issue.
This report includes an updated section regarding the survey, fence and vegetation along the
Church driveway. The discussion describes Ms. Vrhel’s concerns, staff’s determinations and
alternative solutions. The RLUA’s revised condition #26 reflects staff’s recommendation to
increase the driveway fence height to eight (8) feet and require screen vegetation as desired by
Ms. Vrhel and acceptable to the applicant, and includes further specificity on ivy removal to
address Ms. Vrhel’s concern. The condition does not, however, specify where on Church
property the new eight foot fence would be installed, so that the two parties may work this out
on a separate timeline and not in a Council hearing setting, based upon the surveys and the
final terms of the personal license agreement.
Background
The CUP application was tentatively approved in July 2012 by the Planning Director, in
conjunction with the Architectural Review (AR) application for a new building and site
improvements. A neighbor requested a hearing by the Planning and Transportation
Commission on the CUP application. None of the neighbors requested a hearing on the AR
City of Palo Alto Page 3
application, so the AR approval has become effective. The Director’s approval conditions
included a student enrollment cap, since previous CUPs did not cite a numerical limit.
Student Enrollment
The conditions of CUP approval imposed by the Planning Director included placement of a
maximum cap on the total number of students enrolled. This was described during the staff
presentation to the PTC at the June 13, 2012 public hearing. The neighbors have been seeking
a lower cap, a total student enrollment of 300 students, as expressed to the PTC during the
October 3, 2012 hearing.
None of the CUPs previously issued for this site contained a cap to limit the total number of
students attending the private school. There has been some confusion on this point given
comments by staff to the PTC on October 3, 2012. The number of students enrolled in the
school has varied over time. The prior student population on the campus may have
dramatically exceeded 315 students decades earlier, though the enrollment numbers are lower
today. The current enrollment is reportedly 265 students.
The applicant has described why 315 students is the number needed to operate a Catholic
school; statements are reflected in the June 13th and October 3rd PTC meeting minutes on this
point. An enrollment of 315 students, including the preschool, would translate to 31.5 students
per class. The students would be distributed among the pre-K through 8th grade classrooms.
This maximum number of students per classroom would be less than or consistent with the
current public school maximum: 32 students per classroom.
The cap of 315 students stated in the Director’s tentative CUP approval has been carried
forward in the Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) for Council approval. The RLUA Approval
condition #4 requires an annual student enrollment report, and approval condition #3 states
that the Planning Director can add conditions or terminate the CUP. PAMC Section 18.77.110
allows the Director to issue a notice of noncompliance for failure to comply with approval
conditions, or when a use is conducted in a manner detrimental to public health, safety and
welfare. Any CUP is technically subject to a noticed Directors Hearing, if the noncompliance is
not corrected within a specified timeframe, with the opportunity for affected parties to attend
an participate in the hearing.
2007 CUP
The most recent CUP approved for the site was for an application submitted in 2007 [07-PLN-
00188]. The 2007 CUP application included a traffic report that cited an enrollment at that time
of 270 students. The 2007 CUP allowed for the addition of a modular Kindergarten classroom.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The traffic study reflected the existence of an after-school care program. The 2007 CUP
included this condition: “All conditions of the previous use permits shall remain in full effect.”
Another condition of the 2007 CUP noted the property owner’s responsibility to ensure
intensity of use and parking demand does not exceed on-site parking supply. The 2012 CUP is
based upon the provision of four additional parking spaces, designed to meet the additional
demand anticipated from the new Pre-K program. There is no evidence that the school
anticipated expanding the number of students beyond the 270 students enrolled at that time,
but there was also no cap placed on the number of students with the 2007 CUP.
1999 CUP
The previous CUP [99-UP-6], associated with Architectural Review approval 99-ARB-57
(Attachment I), modified a 1987 CUP. The 1999 ARB staff report (Attachment K) indicates the
Use Permit had recently been approved. Attachment H is the 1999 Building Permit allowing the
convent expansion for educational purposes.
1987 CUP
The 1987 CUP [87-UP-40] (Attachment E), amended the 1959 and 1964 CUPs [59-UP-26 and 64-
UP-7]. In total, the CUPs from 1959 through 1999 conditionally allowed for the location and
operation of a church, rectory, convent and school and the use of a portion of the first floor of
the existing convent and then expanded convent for a Kindergarten classroom and afterschool
daycare.
Hours of Operation and Circulation
The hours of operation of the existing school, which include the pre- and after-school hours, are
7 am to 6 pm Monday through Friday. Currently, and pursuant to the 1987 CUP, circulation is
operating via one-way entry from the easternmost driveway to a one-way exit from the
westernmost driveway, shown on Plan Sheet A1.1, and the side parking lot is also used for
Kindergarten drop-offs and pickups.
The October 3, 2012 PTC report describes a split drop-off system that allows for continuation of
the 1987 pattern of drop offs for 1st through 8th graders at the front of the building, and the use
of a side parking lot for both pre-K and Kindergarten student drop-offs. The report highlighted
what seemed to be a mutual agreement between the applicant and neighbors.
The report described why transportation staff supported the proposal for drop-offs and pick-
ups, and noted that the on-site circulation pattern allows for avoidance of an otherwise
potentially detrimental impact - queuing of cars on Channing Avenue during the peak PM
period – given the potential additional number of students above the current enrollment.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Neighbors’ concerns about pick-up patterns (2:45- 6 pm) and associated noise pollution were
expressed to the PTC. Following the PTC hearing, the hearing, requester spoke again with the
applicant to try to resolve her concerns about pick-ups. Staff believes that the issue regarding
pickups has been addressed since, as of October 24, 2012, the school principal has committed
to the following solutions, as negotiated between the hearing requester and applicant:
1. Establishing extended daycare parking in front of the school from approximately 3:30 to
5:30 pm, for grades 5 - 8.
2. Opening the west gate for additional parking as needed. This will reduce vehicles going
to the side parking lot and accommodate any additional vehicles generated from
increasing enrollment to capacity.
The applicant has prepared a plan reflecting this in the plan set provided to Council.
Transportation and planning staff had previously identified an area on-site toward the
front/west side of the property (on-site). Transportation is supportive of this change, as long as
use of the side parking lot (east side) is still allowed if necessary to avoid queue spill-backs onto
Channing Avenue. Condition of approval #9 reflects the wording that has been reviewed by the
hearing requester, to ensure the revision to the circulation is fully acceptable.
Continuity of Afterschool Program
The before-school and after-school program for school students grades K-8 is a typical
component of schools, even public schools. Staff research yielded that the hours often begin at
6:30 or 7 am and end at 6 pm. The Church has stated that in 1987, the school began the
practice of providing after school care (though not mentioned in the 1987 CUP). The CUP
process in 1987 and 1999 included noticed public hearings by the Zoning Administrator
(Attachment J). Attachment I shows that afterschool care for school students was taking place
in the convent building prior to 1999. The 2007 traffic study reflected the existing after-school
care program for the school’s students. The after school care practice was not challenged
through the CUP hearing process in 1999, nor in 2007 through the request-for-hearing process.
PTC Review
The PTC reviewed the current CUP application and heard from the public during two hearings,
on June 13 and October 3, 2012. The original concerns of the hearing requester, and attempts
by the applicant to address them, were described in the June 13, 2012 report, and the October
3, 2012 report (Attachments M and B). The October 3, 2012 PTC minutes (Attachment C)
further illuminate the neighbors’ concerns and the PTC’s consideration thereof.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
The person requesting the hearing had originally expressed a number of concerns as described
in the June 13, 2012 PTC report, and had requested clarification. These concerns included
mislabeling of specific uses on the plans, the requirement for a landscaped strip around the
parking lot areas adjacent to residential uses and amount of landscape screening in the
perimeter area, the number and amount of parking spaces on the existing site as compared to
what was proposed, and vehicular circulation plan for pick up and drop off of students on the
site. The June 13, 2012 PTC meeting minutes are attached to this report (Attachment N).
Between the hearings, the applicant met with neighbors to address concerns raised at the June
13, 2012 PTC hearing regarding traffic circulation related to the additional students anticipated,
and trash and noise issues.
The October 3, 2012 report (Attachment B) summarizes the applicant’s efforts with the
neighbors on these issues, the timeline for the outreach process (between June 27 and
September 26, 2012), the offer of concessions or agreements for modifications designed to
resolve concerns, and the permit history and status of improvements to the school. The
applicant provided information to the PTC at the hearing (Attachment L). The PTC meeting
minutes of October 3, 2012 (Attachment C) reflect the vote (4-1-1-1) and the issues described
by neighbors as discussed during the hearing and considered by the PTC. There were seven
public speakers on June 13, 2012 and five public speakers on October 3, 2012.
On October 3, 2012, neighbors focused on the perimeter fence and perimeter landscape buffer
dimension, the pick-ups at the side entrance and total number of parking spaces for the uses on
the site. The PTC resolved the fence concerns via imposition of an additional approval
condition pertaining to a 250 foot (approximate) portion of the perimeter fence. The fence had
been requested by neighbors to be eight feet tall, so the PTC motion was for a new fence that
would be eight feet tall, placed adjacent to residential property at 1125, 1133, 1139 Channing
Avenue and end midway at 41 Kent Place, serving to buffer noise from the side parking lot. The
one “no” vote was due to the added condition, which requires the Church to pay the entire cost
of the approximately 250 foot long fence, estimated at that time to cost $14,000. Staff noted
during the hearing that a height Variance may be required by Council to implement the
recommendation. This is discussed further in the Discussion section of this report.
Architectural Review
The Architectural Review (AR) approval on April 25, 2012, allowed replacement of the existing
modular Kindergarten classroom with a one-story 3,383 s.f. building, representing a 2,423 s.f.
net increase in floor area. The approval was handled at staff level, due to the minor amount of
additional floor area. The existing modular building, permitted in 1999, is to be removed and
replaced in roughly the same location adjacent to the existing K-8 school building. The approval
became effective on May 10, 2012, since an ARB hearing was not requested nor was the
decision appealed.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Discussion
Issues and Solutions Subsequent to PTC Meetings
On October 22, 2012, the hearing requester asked that Council pull the item from consent
calendar in November to discuss her concerns regarding circulation; however, staff believes
that her concerns have since been resolved. The RLUA reflects the recent solutions reached
between the applicant and hearing requester regarding the revised afternoon traffic flow
pattern and pick up, as described in the background section of this report.
Perimeter Fences and Vegetation at Rear Property Lines
On October 22, 2012, staff and the applicant met for nearly two hours with the hearing
requester and the four owners of residential adjacent property benefitting from the PTC’s
recommendation for a fully funded fence. The owners seemed satisfied by the individual fence
and vegetation solutions discussed at that meeting, and a seven foot wood fence (solid wood to
six feet above grade, with one foot of lattice on top) appeared to be the accepted solution to
mitigate visual concerns. Staff is still supportive of the PTC condition requiring the Church to
fund perimeter fences for the four property owners, but at a seven foot overall height. A
seven foot fence would not require a Variance, nor would a building permit be required.
Based upon conditions observed during the on-site meeting held with the four property
owners, the Church will be working with these owners to implement and fund individual, per-
property fence solutions. That is, the wood fences would be tailored to the individual
circumstances of each of the four properties. The additional fencing material would provide
limited sound attenuation but would provide visual and privacy benefits. The applicant
proposed a construction that would feature noise buffering material between two layers of
wood, to help provide some noise attenuation. Chain link fencing would be modified as needed
following removal of ivy and compromised vegetation, to ensure school security. Asphalt
paving would be removed and wheel stops installed to protect the landscape area, which would
be used to plant additional vegetation (Carolina Laurel was the species discussed in the
meeting) in key locations for screening purposes.
RLUA Condition of Approval #26 reflects the requirements for seven foot tall fences, preserved
and new perimeter vegetation, ivy removal and shrub maintenance, as discussed at the
October 22, 2012 on-site meeting. It does not require an eight foot tall fence as had earlier
been requested by some of these neighbors, and recommended by the PTC, since the neighbors
appeared to be satisfied with the seven foot overall height.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Survey, Fence and Vegetation along Church Driveway
The applicant’s survey is Attachment O to this report. Neighbor Rita Vrhel is procuring a second
survey by a surveyor upon the recommendation of her attorney. Staff does not generally
mediate or decide fence line survey issues, so the condition of approval directly addresses the
height, landscaping and other features of the fence, depending on its location. The remaining
issue for Ms. Vrhel is the placement and height of the fence along the driveway, and the
associated vegetation. The applicant is willing to pay for and install a solid six foot fence in
either of two locations. The applicant is also willing to include a two-foot tall lattice cap
(extending the one-foot tall lattice cap by one foot) for a total fence height of eight feet, as long
as it does not need to be engineered and no Variance is required. There are drawbacks related
to either of the two solutions from Ms. Vrhel’s viewpoint:
1) The applicant prefers to place the fence six inches from the common property line,
based on the Church survey, such that the footings do not cross over the property line.
This would allow a planting strip along the driveway on the Church side of the fence,
approximately 28 inches wide, to provide a tall vegetative screen for the benefit of Ms.
Vrhel. Italian Cypress spaced at two to three feet on center along the driveway is
recommended by the City’s Arborist, with Carolina Laurel placed at five feet on center
as an alternative species that could still be accommodated in the space. The location
would be approximately 14 inches closer to Ms. Vrhel’s property than the existing fence
location, according the applicant’s survey. The drawback for Ms. Vrhel is the loss of the
14 inch width strip of land she has been using and potential need for trimming branches
the existing trees on her property if an eight foot tall fence is installed. This is the one of
the reasons she is having a survey prepared.
2) The applicant’s second choice is to install the fence along the existing alignment, which
would provide an approximately 14 inch wide planting strip on the Church side of the
fence (not enough width for screen vegetation on the Church side of the fence). With
this option, the City’s Arborist recommends Italian Cypress planted where possible along
the fence, among existing trees. The Church also proposed a ‘personal license
agreement’ giving legal rights to Ms. Vrhel to use the approximate 14 inch width of land
between the fence and the common property line (according to the applicant’s survey).
Ms. Vrhel is not satisfied with the terms of the personal license agreement (Attachment
P) since successive owners would inherit the need to forge a new agreement with the
Church for legal rights to the land. This is the second reason she prefers to have an
alternate survey prepared.
The PTC had recommended that an eight foot tall perimeter fence was an acceptable solution
along the rear property lines of the residential properties during on-site discussions with these
neighbors. Staff has reviewed the City’s fence code and is able to support the eight foot tall
City of Palo Alto Page 9
fence on the boundary with Ms. Vrhel’s property without the processing of a Variance, so long
as the solid portion does not exceed six feet in height.
Public Records Request
The hearing requestor also submitted a records request, on October 10, 2012, and staff
responded within several days, providing the specific planning entitlements cited by the
requester, including some of the documents attached to this report. Additional research was
undertaken by staff in response as well, and was provided to the hearing requestor within the
requested timeline.
Policy Implications
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff believes there are no
other substantive policy implications.
Environmental Review
This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per
Section 15301.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (DOC)
Attachment B: October 3, 2012 PTC Staff Report (DOC)
Attachment C: October 3, 2012 DRAFT Excerpt of PTC Verbatim Minutes (DOC)
Attachment D: Tentative AR and CUP Approval Letter (PDF)
Attachment E: 1987 CUP Approval (PDF)
Attachment F: April 30, 2012 Request for Hearing (PDF)
Attachment G: September 26, 2012 Letter from Applicant (PDF)
Attachment H: 1999 Building Permit for 1105 Channing (PDF)
Attachment I: 1999 Planning Permit/AfterSchool Care Documentation (PDF)
Attachment J: 99-UP-6 Notice of Public Hearing (PDF)
Attachment K: 99 ARB Staff Report (PDF)
Attachment L: Applicant Submittal 10.3.12 (PDF)
Attachment M: June 13, 2012 1095 Channing Ave PTC report (DOC)
Attachment N: PTC minutes of June 13, 2012 (DOC)
Attachment O: Survey Layout Plan (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Attachment P: Diocese personal license agreement1 (PDF)
1
DRAFT
ACTION NO. 2012-xx
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR Conditional Use Permit Amendment 11PLN-00437
(John Miller, APPLICANT)
On December 17, 2012, the Council conducted a public
hearing and approved the application for amendment to a Conditional
Use Permit to allow operation of a Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten
and after school day care program making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. On November 29, 2011, John Miller on behalf of
Elizabeth Seton School and Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose,
submitted for a Conditional Use Permit amendment associated with
the operation of a new Pre-Kindergarten program within an expanded
Kindergarten building, and an after school day care program,
associated with an existing private school (K-8 program) at 1095
Channing Avenue. (“The Project”).
B. Following staff review, the Director of Planning and
Community Environment (Director) approved the conditional use
permit application on April 25, 2012 and on April 30, 2012, within
the prescribed timeframe, a request for a public hearing was
submitted; additional information is contained in CMR #XXXX.
C. On June 13, 2012, the Planning and Transportation
Commission reviewed the project and voted [4-0] to continue the
project to a date uncertain to allow time for the applicant to work
with the neighbors to have discussions regarding the proposed
traffic pattern and the issues with trash and noise.
D. On October 3, 2012, the Planning and Transportation
Commission reviewed the project and voted [4-1-1-1] to recommend
that Council approve the project, subject to an addition condition
of approval (Condition #26). The Commission’s action is contained
in the CMR #3333.
E. On November 5, 2012, the Council pulled the item off
consent calendar and scheduled the item for public hearing to
address a neighbor’s final concerns.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. This project is
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines.
2
SECTION 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings.
(1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, as
conditioned, 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.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
proposed building is located on the eastern corner behind the
existing church and convent, aligned with the main internal
circulation, and will replace an existing undersized
Kindergarten structure with newer and larger facility
providing both Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten classrooms
with extended daycare and shall be within the allowable square
footage for the site. Additionally, the new structure will
provide a prominent entrance at the existing parent drop off
and parking area. The new classroom expansion proposes to meet
the maximum student enrollment of 315 students allowed for the
use and there shall be adequate parking spaces to accommodate
this conditional use. The traffic pattern and vehicular
circulation shall be conducted in an orderly way and shall not
generate excessive trip demand. New trees and landscaping is
proposed in the 5-foot setback between the building and
adjacent residential property line to provide additional
buffering and replace the trees that are proposed to be
removed within the new building footprint. Conditions of
approval have been imposed to ensure the project conforms to
the submitted plans.
(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.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
proposed project is replacing an existing 1999
Kindergarten/restroom addition with a larger
Kindergarten/restroom and Pre Kindergarten/restroom addition with
after school daycare program that would be consistent with the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The total proposed 3,383 square
feet addition will include exterior changes and addition that
will provide high quality design and site planning and shall be
compatible to the existing structure in design and materials. The
school shall be conducted in a manner that will support and
promote the provision of comprehensive school and childcare
services by public and private providers as a conditional use in
R-1 zoning district and maintain Palo Alto’s varied neighborhoods
while sustaining vitality of its public facilities. This finding
can be made in the affirmative.
3
SECTION 4. CUP Approval Granted. CUP approval is
hereby granted for the Project by the City Council pursuant to
Chapter 18.77 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 5. Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by John Miller
Architects and received September 26, 2012, except as modified to
incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of
these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community
Development.
SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval.
Planning and Community Environment Department
Planning and Transportation Division
1. The proposed project shall be constructed and shall
operate in substantial conformance with the revised project
description stamped received September 26, 2012, and plans
stamped received September 26, 2012, on file with the City
in planning application no. 11PLN-00437, except as modified
to incorporate these conditions of approval.
2. A copy of this approval letter shall be printed on
the first page of the plans submitted for building permit.
The building permit shall not be approved without this
letter printed on the plan set.
3. The Director of Planning and Community Environment shall
have continuing jurisdiction over this Conditional Use
Permit amendment and reserves the right to revoke or
terminate this permit, reaffirm this permit or modify the
conditions or impose new conditions with respect to this
permit.
4. The total enrollment for Elizabeth Seton School shall be
limited to 315 students which will include the enrollment
for new Pre-Kindergarten program for up to 30 students and
the following hours of operation: Monday through Friday from
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Any increase in enrollment shall
require a new conditional use permit amendment. The school
shall also provide a mandatory annual student enrollment
report to the city to document the cap of students that
shall not exceed 315 (maximum allowed).
5. The applicable conditions of use permit 87-UP-40 (which
amends use permits 59-UP-26 and 64-UP-7) shall apply. They
are briefly itemized as below:
4
a. Parking space to be provided at a ratio of 1 space per each
4 seats
b. Each parking shall be maintained for lifetime.
c. No parking space shall be located within first 20 feet of
the front property line.
d. No parking permitted in the driveways.
e. Driveways located between church and convent and between
rectory and school shall have a minimum width of 14 feet.
f. Exterior lighting shall be so arranged as to protect
adjoining residential properties. To this end no light
source, brilliant, reflection, or excessive, “spill light”
shall be visible from adjacent residential properties.
g. Location of three (3) foot wide privet to reach six feet in
height at maturity to remain next to the existing chain link
fence.
h. Perimeter landscaping and the existing planting located
between Kent Place and the existing cyclone fence shall be
maintained and replaced to provide adequate screening.
i. Any unauthorized lighting shall be removed or altered.
j. There shall be no access or egress to or from Kent Place by
vehicles or pedestrians.
6. The following City standard requirements (related to
neighbors’ concerns) shall be followed:
a. Trash and Recycling requirements shall be applied as per
PAMC code section 18.23.020 (B)(iii) Trash disposal and
recyclable areas shall be screened from public view and
shall be enclosed and covered. Gates or other controlled
access shall be provided as feasible.
b. The school shall install covered trash and recycle
containers at new location, as shown on site plan
(Attachment C) with sufficient trash capacity to prevent
overflow of trash. Additional garbage pick-up trucks will be
scheduled after 8:00 am to avoid disturbance to neighbors in
immediate vicinity. Warning Signs shall be posted throughout
the site warning parents and visitors to turn down their
cell phones and radios when entering and exiting the parking
lot area.
c. Lighting requirements shall be applied as per PAMC code
section 18.23.030(B)(vii) Lighting of the building exterior,
parking areas and pedestrian ways should be of the lowest
intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose, and be
designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive
illumination above the light fixture, and (C) (ii) Timing
device should be considered for exterior and interior lights
in order to minimize light glare at night.
5
d. Perimeter Landscaping shall be provided as per PAMC code
section 18.54.040(a)Each unenclosed parking facility shall
provide and maintain perimeter landscaped strip at least
five feet wide between and adjacent to a line defining the
exterior boundary of the parking area and the nearest
adjacent property line, not separated by a building, and
Landscape screens shall form a dense visual buffer with a
combination of trees and shrubs as per PAMC code section
18.54.040(f)(1) On sites abutting or opposite a residential
site, a dense visual buffer shall be provided. In addition,
trees shall be planted or shall exist at a ratio of not
less than one tree per three hundred square feet of the
landscaped screen or fraction thereof, and supplemented with
shrubs and groundcover. The tree and landscape inventory
shall be as per sheet A1.1 of revised plans dated September
26, 2012, and landscape inspection shall be as per condition
of approval #25 below and new Redwood fences will be per
condition #26.
e. Noise shall be mitigated pursuant to PAMC code section
18.54.050 (g) Areas used for primary circulation, for
frequent idling of vehicle engines, or for loading
activities shall be designed and located to minimize impacts
on adjoining properties, including provisions of screening
or sound baffling. Warning signs will be posted throughout
the site to alert parents and visitors to turn down their
cell phones and radios when entering and exiting the parking
lot area which shall be strictly followed and enforced by
school staff. Other noise abating measurement proposed is
the construction of a Redwood fence along the perimeter of
the parking lot. Cost to be shared between the neighbors and
the Church. Other noise abating measurement requested by
neighbors’ is the construction of a Redwood fence along the
perimeter of the parking lot. Neighbors are willing to share
the cost with the Church.
7. With the exception of pastor office hours, no other
routine church services or activities shall occur during the
peak hours of operation of the Pre-Kindergarten, K-8 and
after school extended day care program, especially during
drop-off and pick-up times. All other activities shall be
limited to assembly sizes such that the parking demand of
these services plus the school classes is less than the 44
spaces for school and 26 spaces for church activities.
8. All drop-off and pick-up operations shall be contained
within the project site and in the areas clearly designated
as drop off/pick-up areas. The school shall have a split
drop-off system. There will be a front drop-off for children
6
from 1st to 8th grade and side or walk-in drop-off for
Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten children. There shall be
an additional drop off area, further down from the front,
which will be used as necessary. Dedicated school staff
members shall be required to supervise and ensure that
proper measures are in place.
9. School dismissal times shall continue to be between 3:00 PM
to approximately 3:05. Students leaving immediately after
dismissal shall be picked up at the side entrance (east side
of school). Vehicles arrive starting at approximately 2:45
PM and queue in the side parking lot (east side of
school/convent), which shall not backup on to Channing Ave.
a. Students not picked up immediately after school stay for
extended daycare in the classrooms or on the rear
playground. Pick up is staggered from 3:30 PM until 5:30 PM
and infrequently delayed pickups may stay to closing at 6:00
PM.
b. Lower grades are signed out by the parents who park in
the side parking lot and walk to the rear playground sign-
out area
c. Upper grades (5th - 8th) are signed out by parents who
park in the front parking areas (between church and school
building) and walk to the rear playground sign-out area.
The west gate, by the science modular classroom, will be
opened as needed to accommodate the vehicles.
10. Any changes proposed by the applicant to amend the striping
on the side of the project site on the west side (where
there is existing, legal noncomplying/inadequate back-
up/aisle width) would require submittal of a revised
striping plan to meet current Palo Alto Municipal Code
requirements. The proposed parking layout showing 44 parking
spaces for school, 26 parking spaces for church and 66 bike
spaces is adequate for current scope of work.
11. The plans submitted for building permit shall include
installation of bicycle parking with a capacity of 1 space
for every 5 students or 63 bikes. The parking should be
installed within 50 feet of the main entrance to the
buildings or distributed around multiple buildings, with
good visibility. The type of bike rack and location shall be
approved by City Staff prior to installation (Inverted-U
type are typical. ‘Wave’ or ‘school yard’ are not allowed).
12. Planning/Landscape Inspection: Prior to final sign off,
contractor or owner shall contact the project planner (650-
7
329-2471) to inspect and verify special conditions relating
to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors as per
material board stamped received September 26, 2012, and
shall contact the Public Works Arborist (650-496-5953) to
inspect the site landscape plan.
13. The school grounds and area in the vicinity of the school
shall be kept in a clean, litter free state. The school
administration shall be responsible for control of litter of
school students in the school vicinity.
Public Works Department
Public Works Engineering
14. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the
applicant must replace those portions of the existing
sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the
public right-of-way along the frontage of the property that
are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and
must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip.
Contact the Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to
arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the
extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with
the building permit plan set must show the extent of the
replacement work or include a note that Public Works’
inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must
note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per
Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must
first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the
Development Center.
15. FLOOD ZONE: The proposed improvements are located within a
Special Flood Hazard Area. Accordingly, the proposed
construction must meet all of the City’s and Federal
Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) requirements for
construction within a flood zone, such as: the finished
bottom floor must be at or above the base flood elevation
(BFE); the crawl space (if used) must have flood vents; and
all construction materials and equipment below the BFE must
be water-resistant. Garage/storage slabs can be below the
BFE, but the garage/storage will then need flood vents. See
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.52, Flood Hazard
Regulations, and our website for more information. The
plans must show the BFE on all applicable elevations,
sections and details; must include a calculation of the
required amount of flood vents; must include the flood vents
on the elevations and foundation plan; must note all
materials below the BFE as water-resistant; and must include
the Elevation Certification Submittal Requirements for
Construction in the Special Flood Hazard Area form, which is
8
available from Public Works at the Development Center or on
our website. Please note that FEMA recently (May 2009)
changed the vertical datum of the flood zones. You must use
the new vertical datum (NAVD88) on plans submitted for a
building permit NOTE: Please correctly show the flood zone
designation as AH27.7
16. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a
grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional
that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and
drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the
site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a
minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splash blocks should be shown
on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as
swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage
onto, or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring
properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater
to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but
encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as
feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other
pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan
Guidelines on our website.
17. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized
"Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be
included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public
Works at the Development Center or on our website.
18. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public
right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street
trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet
of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist
(phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the
plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City
requirements.
19. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate
any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such
as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility
laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must
be done per City standards and that the contractor
performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit
from Public Works at the Development Center.
20. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or
replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface.
Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the
existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the
building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet
9
for Land Developments form and instructions are available at
the Development Center or on our website.
21. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the building permit
plan set that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk
to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a
manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. The
work area must be coned or taped off while still leaving at
least 4 feet of sidewalk for pedestrian use. If less than 4
feet of sidewalk is available for pedestrians, the
contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public
Works to close the sidewalk.”
Public Works Arborist
22. The Tree Protection Report (TPR) prepared by Walter Fujii,
Project Arborist, dated March 06, 2012, is approved and shall
be incorporated into the building permit plan set as specified
below. All tree protection measures specified in this report
are incorporated herein as conditions of project approval, in
addition to the other tree protection conditions outlined
below.
23. The final plans submitted for building permit shall include
the following information and notes on the relevant plan
sheets:
a) Sheet T-1_Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan available on
the City website at
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urbancanopy.asp).
Applicant shall complete and include the Tree Disclosure
Statement and Inspections and monthly reporting by the
project arborist are mandatory (All projects: check #1; with
tree preservation report: check #2-6; with landscape plan:
check #7).
b) The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the TPR
approved by the City shall be printed on Sheet T-2, (T-3, T-
4, etc) and added to the building permit sheet index.
c) Protective Tree Fencing Type. Delineate on grading plans,
irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans, Type II
fencing around Street Trees and Type I fencing
around Protected/Designated trees as a bold and dashed
line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (all permeable
ground area surrounding the trunk) per instructions on
Detail #605, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual,
Section 6.35-Site Plans.
d) Site Plan Notes. Include the following three notes in the
following specified sheet(s) of the building permit plan set
stating:
i) Note #1 - On the Site Plan - "All tree protection and
inspection schedule measures, design recommendations,
10
watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in
full by owner and contractor, as stated in the Tree
Protection Report on Sheet T-1 and the approved plans,”
ii) Note #2 - All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans,
site plans, utility plans and relevant sheets shall include
a note referring to the trees to be protected,
including neighboring trees, stating: "Regulated Tree -
before working in this area contact Walter Fujii,
Project Site Arborist, at (415) 699-6269," and
iii) Note #3 - All Utility plan sheets shall include the
following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within
the TPZ of a protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible
for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the
protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape
workers. See sheet T-1 and note on site plan for
instructions.”
24. The plans submitted for building permit shall include a
landscaping plan showing details of new landscaping and tree
relocation. Alternate planting may be approved with review
of City’s Public Works Arborist.
25. The final landscape inspection, prior to occupancy approval,
shall require review of the planting of new trees and
landscaping as noted on sheet A1.1 of revised plans, dated
September 26, 2012 with approved plans dated received
February 15, 2012, and marked as “Exhibit A.” These include
(1) 15-gallon Coast Live Oak, (1) 24” box Persian Ironwood,
(1) 24” box Elegant Tristania and T-25 shall be Acer
“October Glory” as replacement trees to be located as per
the direction of the City Arborist. Persian Ironwood (T-14)
shall be used for screening trees as required for neighbors’
backyards along south-east property line. Evergreen hedge
consisting of (1) 5-gallon New Zealand Flax and (1) 5-
gallon Carolina Cherry shall be planted at 5’ O.C. along the
north-east property line as landscape screening and buffer
for abutting residential parcels, and (1) 5-gallon New
Zealand Flax as landscape screening at the south-west
(front) corner of the property. Two Monterey Pine trees and
two Glossy Privets are permitted to be removed as per tree
schedule information on sheet A1.1 of revised plans dated
September 26, 2012. All Ivy along the perimeter of parking
lot shall be removed.
26. The church shall build on church property, and maintain, a
new (8) eight-foot tall redwood fence along the driveway
adjacent to 1125 Channing. The fence shall be a six feet
tall solid wood fence plus a two foot tall lattice top with
redwood siding and cement board noise-attenuation features
as submitted to City staff October 26th, 2012. If the fence
11
is adjusted (based upon the Church land survey) to provide
additional and adequate width for planting screening
vegetation along the Church driveway, the Church shall plant
Italian Cypress trees along the driveway planting strip at
two to three feet on center (on the Church side of the
fence). If the fence is placed in the same location as the
existing fence, the applicant shall allow the owner of 1125
Channing to plant vegetation on Church property (assuming
the Church land survey is correct) on the other side of the
fence, to provide additional screening.
Additionally, new six foot tall plus one foot tall lattice
top wood fences with noise-attenuation, or modifications to
existing fences as desired by mutual parties (residential
property owner and Church), shall be built and paid for by
the Church outside the chain-link fence and tailored to each
property owner at 1125, 1133, 1139 Channing Ave. and ending
midway at 41 Kent Place. Fences shall be built during the
first stage of construction. A five foot wide landscape
strip at the edge of the side parking lot shall be created
along the common rear property line with 1125, 1133, 1139
Channing Avenue and ending midway along the side property
line of 41 Kent Place. In the landscape strip, the Church
shall keep the existing large trees and plant four (15
gallon) Prunus Caroliniana behind 1133 and 1139 Channing
Avenue and 11 Prunus Caroliniana next to 1141 Kent Place
side property line. The existing vegetation in the
landscape strip behind 1125 Channing Ave shall be pruned
with the assistance of the neighbor. All ivy shall be
permanently removed in the landscape strip up to the common
property line and removed and trimmed quarterly or as
necessary by the church staff to keep the ivy under control.
The Church staff will remove and keep trimmed all ivy which
was planted on the Church property but has spread to the
area between the fences at the back of 1125 Channing Avenue.
Irrigation shall be added only as needed to establish the
Prunus Caroliniana and discourage ivy re-establishment. The
parking spaces along the property line with the rear of
1125, 1133, 1139 Channing Avenue shall be signed “staff” and
have wheel stops.
27. A tree relocation plan shall be submitted to the City’s
Public Works Arborist and approved prior to building permit
issuance.
28. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees and new
landscaping. For trees, detail #513 shall be included on the
irrigation plans showing two bubbler heads mounted on
flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball.
Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The
12
tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate
valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the
City’s Landscape Water Efficiency Standards.
29. Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is
adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to
minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, painted
dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire
cages are discouraged).
30. Landscape Planting notes shall include the following: “Prior
to any planting, all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12”
depth, and all construction rubble and stones over 1” or
larger shall be removed from the site. A turf-free zone
around trees 36” diameter (18” radius) shall be provided for
best tree performance.”
31. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or
building permit issuance, a written verification from the
contractor of record shall be submitted to the Building
Inspections Division indicating that the required protective
fencing is in place. The fencing shall contain required
warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the
project.
32. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures
apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material,
topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the
tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree
canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall
be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure
survival.
33. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec.2.20 C&D). Any
approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy
shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference,
with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching,
including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5
inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If
directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots,
then “Trenching and Tunneling Distance,” shall be printed on
the final plans.
34. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or
during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by
Walter Fujii, Project site Arborist, at (415) 699-6269, with
written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to
the City for review.
13
35. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval
for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for
building permit.
36. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall
implement all Arborist Inspection Schedule measures; design
recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in
the TPR, which are subject to code compliance action pursuant
to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain
in place until final landscaping and inspection of the
project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and
documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. A
mandatory Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the
City Building Division beginning with the initial verification
approval, using the template in the TTM, Addendum 11.
37. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections
apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and
arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM,
Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the
repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees
that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant
to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and City Tree Technical
Manual, Section 2.25.
38. LANDSCAPE INSPECTION. Prior to final occupancy approval, the
Planning Department (attn. project planner) and Public Works
Arborist shall be in receipt of written verification from the
project arborist that he/she has inspected all protected trees
and irrigation, and that they are functioning as specified in
the approved plans dated March 8, 2012 and as shown on Exhibit
A. The inspections should include the following: i)
Performance of Percolation & drainage checks is acceptable,
ii) Inspection of Fine grading and all plantable areas for
tilling depth, rubble removal, soil test amendments are mixed
and irrigation trenching will not cut through any tree roots,
and iii) Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including
delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical
Manual, Section 3.30-3.50.
39. MAINTENANCE. After final occupancy approval all required
landscape and screening trees indicated in condition of
approval shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned
according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2001
or current version). Any screening tree that dies shall be
replaced (with approved tree species and box size as shown on
Exhibit A) or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the
current property owner within 30 days of discovery.
14
40. Private Easement verification and allocation shall be the
responsibility of the property owner and shall not be part of
this approval.
Building and Fire Department
41. Due to the new addition and expansion in use, the existing
building, including restrooms, shall comply with all
requirements of the 2010 Building and Fire codes and local
ordinances.
42. Monitored NFPA 13 fire sprinkler and NFPA 72 fire alarm system
shall be installed.
43. The Fire Department access roadway shall be a min 20 ft wide
all weather surfaces and be capable of supporting a 75,000 lbs
fire apparatus. The roadway shall have a min 13 ft 6 in
vertical clearance.
44. Fire Department access roadway to be posted as Fire Lane-No
Stopping. Fire Access roadway to meet the standards of the
Palo Alto FD.
45. Submit plans and specs to the Palo Alto Fire Department
Hazardous Materials Division for review, approval and permit
prior to installation.
Utilities Department
Utilities Water Gas Wastewater
46. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA
backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and
new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply
with requirements of California administrative code, title
17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be
installed on the owner's property and directly behind the
water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for
domestic service shall be lead free.
47. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required
for the existing or new water connection for the fire
sprinkler system or onsite fire hydrants to comply with
requirements of California administrative code, title 17,
sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector
assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems
upon the CPAU’s approval). Reduced pressure detector
assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property within
5 feet of the property line.
48. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility
15
construction showing the location for the new backflow
preventers.
49. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW
engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross
connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between
the meter and the assembly.
50. All new backflow preventer devices shall be inspected by the
utilities cross connection inspector and tested by a
licensed tester prior to final sign off for the project. The
applicant shall provide the City with the initial test
certificates and name, address, and phone number of
responsible party for subsequent annual testing for all
backflows.
51. For existing backflow preventer devices, the applicant shall
provide current annual test certificates and name, address,
and phone number of responsible party for subsequent annual
testing prior to final sign off for the project.
52. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater
service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo
Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the existing
and new load information requested for utility service
demands specifically for the added gas load in b.t.u.p.h.
The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the
new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus
any existing loads to remain).
53. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete
bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing
water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’
horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete
base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there
is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases
shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet
field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of
existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters.
New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be
installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’
between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater
services/mains/meters.
54. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of
any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water,
recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc).
55. The applicant shall be responsible for any upgrading the
existing utility services as necessary to handle anticipated
16
peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs
associated with the design and construction for the
installation/upgrade of the utility services.
56. Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located less than one
foot above the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall
be protected by an approved backwater valve per California
Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim
elevation shall be shown on the plans.
57. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not
exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a
detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer.
58. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions:
1) The pump(s) is limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or less.
2) The sewage line changes to a 4” gravity flow line at least
20’ from the City clean out.
3) The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time
shall not exceed 20 seconds each cycle.
59. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection
fees associated with any new utility service/s or added
demand on existing services. The approved relocation of
services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be
performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the
relocation.
60. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the
City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas &
wastewater.
Utilities Marketing
61. If this project includes over 1,500 square feet of landscape
modifications, the landscape and irrigation plans shall be
approved by Utility Marketing Services, a division of the
Utilities Department. Prior to issuance of either a Building
Permit or Grading Permit, the applicant will need to comply
with the City’s Landscape Efficiency Standards, which
includes installation of a dedicated irrigation meter and
approved backflow prevention device. Please submit the
following items when applying for your Building and/or
Grading Permit:
1) Landscape Water Use Statement
2) Water Use Calculations
3) Irrigation Plan
4) Grading Plan
5) Planting Plan
17
62. All documents and information to comply with the Landscape
Water Efficiency Standards can be found on the City of Palo
Alto Utilities website at www.cityofpaloalto.org/utilities.
If you have any further questions, please contact Amanda Cox
with Utility Marketing Services at (650) 329-2417.
END OF CONDITIONS
SECTION 7. Indemnity.
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify
and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers,
employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against
any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against
the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or
void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City 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.
SECTION 8. Term of Approval. The approval shall be
valid for one year from the revised date of approval (November 5,
2012), pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.090.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
City of Palo Alto Page 1
PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: Rina Shah, Project Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: October 3, 2012
SUBJECT: 1095 Channing Ave [11PLN-00437]: Request by John Miller, on behalf of
Elizabeth Seton School and Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, for a
Conditional Use Permit Amendment allowing the operation of a new Pre-
Kindergarten program within an expanded building, and an after school day
care program, associated with an existing private school (K-8 program) at
1095 Channing Avenue. Zone: R-1. Environmental Assessment: Exempt
from CEQA per section 15301.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City
Council approve the requested Conditional Use Permit amendment (CUP) 11PLN-00437, with
revisions reflected in Attachment D as presented to address neighbor concerns, and based upon
additional findings and conditions as set forth in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
On June 13, 2012, the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) held a public hearing
and continued the item to a date uncertain to allow time for the applicant to work with the
neighbors regarding the proposed traffic pattern and trash and noise issues. The June 13th P&TC
report is included as Attachment B, and the meeting minutes are included as Attachment C of
this staff report.
Conditional Use Permit Review Process
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires that property owners obtain a conditional use permit for
certain uses within most zoning districts. Conditional use permit requests must be publicly
noticed, reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission, and ultimately reviewed and
approved by the City Council. The PT&C makes a recommendation to the Council, and the
Council decision is final. These differ from permitted uses, which can be approved at a staff
City of Palo Alto Page 2
level without public review. In this case, the Municipal Code requires that a conditional use
permit request be approved prior to operation of a school in an R-1 zone and PAMC Section
18.76.010 (c) requires the following findings:
(1) Not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
(2) Be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning).
As noted below, an expansion of a previously approved conditional use also requires P&TC
review, as well as City Council review and approval, which is the case for this application. The
conditional use permit process allows the public to be fully informed and participate in the
review process, while allowing the P&TC and Council to place conditions on projects in order to
reduce or eliminate potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood.
Permit History
There have been numerous planning entitlements issued to this site over the past five decades.
Table 1 outlines the CUP history details. This CUP application will amend 87-UP-40
(Attachment E). All applicable conditions of approval associated with conditional use permits
59-UP-26 and 64-UP-26 are applied as condition of approval #5 in the RLUA (Attachment A).
Since 1959, the existing school has offered 1st through 8th grade education. The Kindergarten
program began operation in 1987. The school is now requesting to add a new Pre-Kindergarten
program to their existing Kindergarten through 8th grade school.
Table 1
CUP NUMBER YEAR REASON FOR CUP
59-UP-26 1959 Church, rectory, residence,
school
64-UP-7 1964 Off-street parking facilities,
amend 59-UP-26 for perimeter
parking requirements
87-UP-40 1987 Kindergarten classroom in
Convent
99-UP-6 1999 Kindergarten classroom in new
modular building
7PLN-00188 2007 Modular Science Classroom
Structure
11PLN-00437 2011-2012 Add Pre-Kindergarten classroom
and after school daycare
DISCUSSION
On June 27, 2012, a neighborhood outreach meeting was held by the Church where both parties
met and discussed the issues related to the site. On August 20, 2012, a neighbor representative
provided the staff with a written list of concerns. These concerns went beyond those described to
City of Palo Alto Page 3
the P&TC at the 6/13/2012 public hearing. On September 26, 2012, the applicant provided a
written response to the neighbors’ issues and concerns (Attachment G) and a revised project
description (Attachment H). The school is able to address most of the neighbors’ concerns as
listed in Attachment F.
Traffic Circulation
Traffic flow and student drop-off were the two most significant concerns expressed by the
neighbors at the June 13th PTC meeting. Both parties are mutually agreeable to a split drop-off
system where:
(1) All cars will have one-way entry and one-way exit from Channing Ave;
(2) There will be a front drop-off for 1st through 8th grades; and
(3) All parents of Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten children will park in the parking lot
adjacent to the Kindergarten room and walk to the Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten
classrooms as per the revised site plan (Attachment D). There will be an additional drop off area
(shown on Attachment D) which will be used when necessary.
The pick-up times will vary because most children attend the extended daycare program, which
remains open until 6 pm. The city’s traffic engineer supports the current circulation pattern at
pick-up times. The cars begin to queue around 2:45 pm, circulate around the parking lot, pick up
children at the side entrance, then exit onto Channing Avenue. This pattern avoids traffic queuing
on Channing Avenue; however, the neighbors are still concerned that this pattern of traffic at
pick-up times will be detrimental due to noise concerns.
Maximum Number of Students.
The school will balance the classroom sizes in all of their ten classrooms so as not to exceed the
existing CUP school student cap of 315 students. Additionally, any proposal for an increase in
the number of students would require a new CUP amendment. Staff is still supportive of the total
student number, which will not exceed 315. A mandatory annual report of student enrollment
shall be submitted by the school to the city. This requirement is included as condition of approval
#4 in RLUA (Attachment A).
Trash and Noise
The school will install covered trash and recycle containers at a new location, as shown on the
site plan (Attachment D), and conditions of approval # 6 (a), (b) and (c), in the RLUA
(Attachment A), with sufficient capacity to prevent overflow of trash. Additional garbage pick-up
trucks will be scheduled after 8:00 am to avoid disturbance to neighbors in immediate vicinity.
Warning signs will be posted throughout the site to alert parents and visitors to turn down their
cell phones and radios when entering and exiting the parking lot area which shall be strictly
followed and enforced by school staff. Other noise abating measurement requested by neighbors’
is the construction of a Redwood fence along the entire perimeter of the parking lot. Neighbors
are willing to share the cost with the Church.
Following is a brief summary of the applicant’s response to neighbors’ concerns as listed in
Attachment F:
a. The cap for maximum number of students will remain at 315;
City of Palo Alto Page 4
b. Drop-offs and pick-ups before and after school will occur on site. Cars will enter
from the most easterly driveway from Channing Ave and depart from westerly
driveway on to Channing Ave;
c. The morning drop-off will be at the front of the school for Grades 1-8;
The Kindergarten and Pre-K parents will park in the lot adjacent to the
Kindergarten and walk the children to the classrooms. The pick-ups for all
children will be at the new side entrance;
d. Noise will be contained on site with adequate signs and posting of rules to be
strictly followed.
e. New Redwood fence will be built along the shared property line at the entrance
driveway. The Church and the neighbor will share the cost;
f. Lighting will be non-glaring and directed downwards away from surrounding
residential properties;
g. Trash enclosures will remain covered and locked at all times, except at trash pick-
up time. Additional garbage pick-up times may be scheduled after 8 am;
h. A pest control program will be implemented; all ivy along the parking lot
perimeter shall be removed and replaced with green ground cover;
i. Additional perimeter landscaping and screening with trees and hedges will be
provided as per city arborist recommendation.
Update on School Construction,
The school secured a separate building permit on May 23rd to commence the remodel /repair of
the existing elementary school restrooms for ADA compliance.
A Temporary Use Permit (TUP) was issued on August 15th to allow Elizabeth Seton Catholic
School to operate a Kindergarten classroom in a new temporary modular structure during the
CUP process finalization and construction of the new Kindergarten building which is the subject
of this CUP application. The neighbors’ representative was notified of the TUP.
Unrelated Construction Noise Issue
On August 15, 2012, a neighbor complained about noise due to storm repair work being carried
out by the City’s Public Works Department. The church allowed the use of their parking for a
temporary staging area. Neither the city workers nor the church were aware that the parking lot
would be needed by the school. The staging area was immediately vacated. This situation caused
confusion and delay in resolution of the neighbors’ concerns.
TIMELINE
This project is tentatively scheduled for Council Consent Calendar on November 5th, 2012. A
minimum of three votes is required for Council to remove the item from the consent calendar.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per
Section 15301.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
ATTACHMENTS
A. Record of Land Use Action
B. PTC Report June 13th w/attachments
C. Minutes of June 13th PTC meeting
D. Site Plan (Revised)*
E. Use Permit 87-UP-40
F. Neighbors’ Concerns List*
G. Response to Neighbors’ Concerns*
H. Revised Project Description*
I. Plans (Commission only)*
* Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff
COURTESY COPIES:
John Miller, 579 Clyde Ave, Suite 300, Mountain View, CA 94043, Applicant
Chuck Tully, 3290 Middlefield Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94306, Property Manager
Evelyn Rosa, 1095 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Principal
Rita Vrhel, 1125 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Appellant
Lee Caswell, 1139 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Neighbor
PREPARED BY: Rina Shah, Project Planner
REVIEWED BY: Amy French, Chief Planning Official
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL:
Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director
1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Draft Verbatim Minutes 2
October 3, 2012 3
4
EXCERPT 5
6
1095 Channing Avenue: (Continued from June 13th P&TC Meeting) 7
8
Acting Chair Michael: So we’ll proceed to the first matter on the agenda which is the application 9
for the Conditional Use Permit for 1095 Channing Avenue. This is a request by John Miller on 10
behalf of Elizabeth Seton School and the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, for a Conditional 11
Use Permit Amendment allowing the operation of a new Pre-Kindergarten program within an 12
expanded building, and an after school day care program, associated with an existing private 13
school which is K-8 program at 1095 Channing Avenue. 14
15
The Vice-Chair will introduce the speakers. 16
17
Vice-Chair Tanaka: The first speaker is John Miller. We would like a Staff Report. 18
19
Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Amy French, Chief Planning Official. The project 20
before you is a continuation of the hearing that took place on this item on June 13th. It is an 21
amendment to an existing K-8 school site and church site to establish this Pre-K program and 22
extended Day Care program for these Pre-K children. The Planning Commission asked the staff 23
to continue the item so that the staff and the Applicant could receive some feedback from the 24
neighbors and try to resolve the issues that were brought up at the hearing. Some additional 25
issues were brought up during some of those discussions; the issues as noted in the staff report: 26
traffic, circulation, noise, landscape, and the cap to the number of the children at the school. 27
Some of those were reported out in the staff report for some resolution there. The Conditions of 28
Approval, Condition Number 4, talks about having to report to the City to verify that they’re not 29
exceeding the cap that was in place with the previous Condition. There are four Conditional Use 30
Permits on file with this property dating back to as far as 1959. The school began in 1959 at this 31
site and the kindergarten was brought about in 1987 and then in 1999 there were some additional 32
changes at this site. 33
34
Condition Number 5 in the Record of Land Use Action does make mention of those earlier Use 35
Permit Conditions that this project will relate to those applicable conditions, and itemizes them 36
in that Condition Number 5. The Extended Care Program is the same hours as has been 37
operating at the site since approximately 1998, 7 to 10 a.m., from 3 to 6 p.m., that’s been in 38
operation for the K – 8 school, and that will be the same hours for the Pre-K and extended care. 39
40
There are some items that include fencing; the church has agreed to pay 50 percent of the fencing 41
that commonly separating the properties, the residential properties, from the church on one side 42
from where the parking lot is on the driveway. The cap on the students is still 315 as in the 43
previous proposal for the property, and there are other things such as trash and vermin issues that 44
are going to be mitigated as described in the Conditions of Approval. 45
46
That pretty much concludes the staff report. The Applicant is here as is the staff who prepared 47
the report, Rina Shah. 48
49
2
Acting Chair Michael: So at this time are there any questions from Commissioners? Of the 1
staff? Commissioner Tuma. 2
3
Commissioner Tuma: We just received a stack of papers at places, one of which appears to be 4
something from one of the neighbors. And then there’s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 pages of documents 5
that I think are from the neighbors, I’m not sure. Or from a neighbor, so, my question is, have 6
you all had a chance to review these? Do you have any points of view in terms of the contents of 7
this and I’m asking this question in the context of really trying to understand what issues remain 8
open in staff’s pages as well, but trying not to rehash things we’ve talked about before but trying 9
to get a sense of the results of the meetings and the documents we have. 10
11
Ms. French: I can say that I have not just now seen this stack here so perhaps during the public 12
testimony on this project I will have a chance to read thoroughly through this. I did have a 13
conversation with one neighbor, Rita Vrhel, who initially requested the hearing, and I heard from 14
her three to four items that she is concerned about, then I spoke with the Applicant, John Miller, 15
who is also here and some of these seem to have been resolved since the survey was done by the 16
Applicant. The neighbor doesn’t have a copy of that survey but the church has obtained the 17
survey from what I understand. 18
19
So some of these, I understand, they are not resolved. From Rita, Ms. Vrhels’ standpoint, she 20
would like the church to pay 100% of the cost of the fence and the church policy is 50%, the 21
applicant can elaborate more on that. She would like an 8 foot tall fence where a 7 foot tall fence 22
is the maximum. There are no building permits required for a 7 foot tall fence along the property 23
line there, though a variance would be required for an 8 foot tall fence. 24
25
There is the other item that was on key her list, which was the cars going by her property. I 26
spoke with the Applicant about that, so I don’t know if there are other neighbors that have that 27
concern. Ms. Vrhel continues to have a concern about additional cars driving by her home for the 28
pickup portion of the day. So that’s my understanding but I will go through this stack here. 29
30
Acting Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck? 31
32
Commissioner Alcheck: Yes, can you clarify real quick; you said the 7 foot tall fence is the 33
maximum. What is the requirement between a residential property and this type of property? 34
35
Ms. French: So this type of property is zoned R1, it’s got a Conditional Use Permit for a church 36
and school; being it is still R1 zoning, then a 7 foot fence is the maximum height. 37
38
Commissioner Alcheck: There is no requirement there be a fence. 39
40
Ms. French: There is no requirement that there be a fence. If it is a commercial property, we do 41
get that solid fence that is 8 feet tall, and it will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, 42
etc. So in the case of this, because it is residentially zoned and it is backed up to residential, if 43
there is a fence placed on the common property line or maybe even portionally on the residential 44
home side there’s no requirement for review by the ARB and there’s no Variance either as long 45
as it’s 7 feet tall. 46
47
Commissioner Alcheck: As long as it’s not more than 7 feet tall. 48
49
3
Ms. French: Not more than 7 feet tall, right. It’s kind of an odd thing because it’s not a 1
commercial property. 2
3
Commissioner Alcheck: If it was a commercial property then it would be a minimum of 8 foot. 4
5
Ms. French: I believe that’s in the performance standards under Chapter 18.45… 6
7
Commissioner Alcheck: Solid redwood or something similar, something just solid. 8
9
Ms. French: Yes, solid redwood fence, I think Ms. Vrhel was considering a 6 feet fence with 2 10
feet lattice on top. 11
12
Acting Chair Michael: Are there other questions from Commissioners? One question I have 13
Amy is under the existing Conditional Use Permit, what is the enrollment cap on the school? 14
15
Ms. French: Its 315 students. The enrollment has not reached that high in actuality but the cap 16
cannot be 315 students. (This is actually inaccurate – the cap is proposed with this Use Permit). 17
18
Acting Chair Michael: And what we have before us there includes a request that there would be 19
some sort of annual report to the City about the actual enrollment. 20
21
Ms. French: Correct. And with all Conditional Use Permits there is capacity for a Directors 22
Hearing, should Conditions of a Use Permit not be fulfilled, or should problems arise that are not 23
nailed down to the Conditional Use Permit, so we do have that kind of outlet if there should 24
become an issue that we haven’t anticipated. 25
26
Acting Chair Michael: Ok so hearing no further questions from Commissioners about the Staff 27
Report, should we move to Public testimony? Presentation by the Applicant. I believe 15 28
minutes is appropriate. 29
30
Mr. John Miller: Thank you very much Commissioners. Thank you for hearing this tonight. 31
My client has worked very hard and has been very accommodating in listening and responding to 32
issues that had been brought up by the neighbors. I want to go through the process first. I also 33
want to thank Lee Caswell for his hours of effort that he’s put in working with us at the church 34
and school. 35
36
So how do I get rid of this? Ok so let me explain that before we put our application in last 37
November, we did some outreach. During the application time we also did some more outreach. 38
This is one of the cards that was sent out and as you can see there is three dates where there were 39
coffees. These coffees are held once a month by the school. This was not exclusively for just 40
talking about the project. It was the school is general so I think it might have been missed by 41
some of the neighbors. So at the second hearing when we became aware that there were issues 42
with other neighbors, we went through another round of outreach. We walked the site with the 43
neighbors, understood their issues. We communicated our needs in following through with the 44
mission of the school. 45
46
There were a number of things that were small items. The two big things is traffic and I call it 47
capacity, maximum enrollment. There are some things you’ve already taken care of. There is a 48
rodent issue. We got Vector Control to come out and review the site. We have changed out our 49
4
dumpsters to dumpsters with metal lids. They do exist. Green waste came out. They were great. 1
They are going to give the school training on recycling. They got these dumpsters with lids out 2
within a couple of days and we’re also going to have several more pickups. So the issue with 3
food or anything in the dumpsters, I think we’ve taken care of. The other thing is that there is 4
some trash around sometimes by the dumpsters. The multiple pickups will take care of that. 5
6
There were some things about light trespassing and we’ve committed to removing some of the 7
lights on existing buildings which are the interference now. The lights on the new building we 8
got a photometric and we have no direct lights spill over the property line. Another thing was 9
communications; we’ve identified two people, the business manager and the school principle 10
who can always be contacted if there is an issue. I believe in the past if the neighbors have had 11
an issue they’ve contacted the Business Manager, Chuck Tilley, and he’s responded. 12
13
So let me talk about traffic. The number of iterations, this is in your packet so this is the plan 14
that we developed and as you can see the right side where it says parking we call it the side 15
parking lot. You can see a series of arrows that go up, wind around parking and then come out 16
and they subsequently pass between the church which is the building at the bottom and school 17
which is a building at the top this way and then proceed out. Now what we are proposing and 18
what is already done is that in the morning the kids that can get dropped off are dropped off here. 19
I have pictures that show how smoothly that’s working. There are no kids on Channing Street. 20
It’s done very quickly. The kids before school stay in the gymnasium which is right here and 21
then when school starts they process to the school. 22
23
In the afternoon, because 80% of the kids stay in extended daycare, they’re picked up in a 24
staggered fashion throughout the day, throughout the afternoon. I have a chart here that shows 25
just that. We took 15 minute intervals and I brought extra copies and you can see where drop off 26
in the morning and pick up in the evening occur and then you can see to the right that there is 27
every 15 minutes there is about 1 car a minute that comes in and picks up their kids. The key 28
thing with extended daycare is that each child must be signed out. Their parent or guardian has 29
to come in. It’s not just jump in the car and go. That has become very important to us. It’s 30
essential. We can’t operate the other way. 31
32
The other thing is the kids in extended daycare, they will have a homework room and then they’ll 33
stay in their classrooms or play on the playground. That’s where they’ll stay. It’s at the back 34
half of the school and the playground which is at the top of the building. So with this 35
arrangement we’ve instituted, it’s working well. It’s written up in the school manual already and 36
it’s being communicated by the principal. We also have a monitor system out. There are 37
students, I have some pictures of that a ways down. They have really made this a tight, well-38
organized operation. 39
40
This summarizes in chart fashion not only the current car situation by 15 minute, half hour 41
intervals but also it projects out what parking would be at full capacity. For instance, between 7 42
and 7:30 a.m. it might go from 23 to 28. This is based on the fact that there are 2.6 children per 43
vehicle in the morning and 1.8 children per vehicle in the afternoon. For the morning you can 44
see there is already a lot of carpooling going on. The key thing is the side parking lot which is 45
this white side and if you notice that the 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. when school starts goes from 80 46
parking now, it will go down to about 35 or has gone down to 35 because of most of the kids 47
now going to the front drop off. 48
49
5
During the day, which is this band, there are very few cars, emergencies only. Then after school 1
which is 3:00 to 3:30, kids are again picked up, but in the side parking lot and we expect that in 2
that half hour to go from 55 cars to 65 cars and then from 3:30 to essentially 5:30, all kids are 3
gone at 5:30 except for the half hour it could stay open for emergencies, parents that are delayed 4
in traffic, stuff. We expect now we experience 104 cars, we expect at capacity to go up to 122 5
cars. That’s a delta of 18 cars over basically 2 hours. 6
7
The Principal will talk more about school capacity but in terms of school capacity, just some 8
history. The school was really built in 1950 and opened in 1951. Back in those days they 9
probably had 40 kids in 8 grades so there were probably 400 kids in the school. Some numbers 10
of 330 are floating around. So that there wouldn’t be any impact, additional impact we kept our 11
maximum at 315 and reduced the class size on the other classes so that the ten classes with Pre-K 12
would now be 31 and a half students per class. 13
14
In terms of other things, in terms of noise and ways that we can help be good neighbors, they’ve 15
agreed to remove ivy which is for rodent control and they’ve agreed to pay 50% of the fence and 16
put in landscaping per the City Arborists along the common property line. With those items I 17
think that we have really identified the issues and addressed them. I’d like to have the Principal 18
say a few words. 19
20
Ms. Evelyn Rosa: Good evening everyone. I just have a few comments I would like to make. 21
First I would also like to express my gratitude to Lee Caswell and John Miller for their joint 22
efforts to facilitate communication with the neighbors, the school and the city. We really have 23
listened to and noted other concerns and have worked to address all of the issues. 24
25
I have some concerns because it is my understanding that the enrollment of the school is in 26
question. The Catholic schools in both the Archdiocese of San Francisco and the Diocese of San 27
Jose regularly enroll about 35 students per class and in some cases more than that apart from 28
preschool. Our current enrollment is only 261 students. We are nowhere near 315, but we do 29
need to insure the financial viability of the school. Fortunately at this point we are sponsored by 30
the Daughters of Charity. Our tuition is only $3,300 a year and the cost per child is about 31
$10,000 because even the after school care is free to our school families. So an enrollment of 32
315 including preschool would translate as John said to 31.5 students per class and we do not 33
feel that this is excessive by any means. 34
35
I also have some concerns about the delays that we’ve experienced due to the length of this 36
process. Our donors and staunch supporters who are also Palo Alto residents are expressing their 37
concerns regarding the delays. They’ve invested $2 million for this project. This is not coming 38
out of school funds or parishioner funds even. This is coming directly from Palo Alto donors. 39
They’ve invested $2 million as well as their support for the mission of this school which is to 40
educate children of East Palo Alto and break the cycle of poverty. 41
42
We canceled summer school to allow for the beginning of the building project. Our new school 43
restrooms that were part of the project were not completed on time. The kindergarten portable 44
did not arrive on time. We were not able to get kindergarten started until late. It was our first 45
year having a full day kindergarten, the entire project was delayed. Understandably this caused 46
the teachers and the students’ great inconvenience and also the school incurred significant 47
expenses as a result of the delays so it’s important to note that. The project is currently way 48
6
behind schedule and we really need to get rolling if the building is to be ready in the fall. Thank 1
you for listening. 2
3
Acting Chair Michael: So are there any Planning Commission questions of the Applicant? So 4
hearing none, let’s move to Public Comment. We have about ten cards so we’ll observe the 5
limitation of 3 minutes per speaker. Mr. Tanaka. 6
7
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: So the first speaker is John Miller. 8
9
Acting Chair Michael: We’ve heard from him already. 10
11
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The second speaker is Evelyn Rosa. The third speaker is Michael 12
Nash to be followed by Pauline Hayward. 13
14
Mr. Michael Nash: Thank you. So my name is Mike Nash. I live at 1102 Channing so directly 15
across from the church. I’ve been there for about 10 years. A couple of things, first of all I 16
wasn’t expecting to see data and I work at Data Analytics so it was good to see that but I wanted 17
to also put a dose of reality from my perspective. Again, I live directly across the street so I feel 18
the traffic that occurs every day. The traffic pattern that worked so well doesn’t always work so 19
well from my perspective. Students are dropped off on the street, so if there is a Business 20
Manager we can chat with about that it would probably be appropriate. 21
22
As the kids go on field trips which they deserve, the busses that park on Channing illegally at 23
7:30 in the morning to pick up the kids. That needs to be addressed. They can’t go into the 24
parking lot because there is no room. It’s the same thing with the weddings. So I just wanted to 25
share with you that from a resident that lives across the street and loves the church bells, we still 26
feel the pain. If you feel that traffic patterns and the parking is sufficient I disagree. 27
28
I realize this is taking longer than expected but I applaud the fact that we’re all sitting here being 29
civil and talking about it because it’s not a solved issue from my perspective. Thank you. 30
31
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Pauline Hayward followed by Irene Kane. 32
33
Ms. Pauline Hayward: Ms. Pauline Hayward, I live at 1040 Channing which is straight across 34
the street. I’ve lived there for 45 years. When I moved in the gentleman on one side of me who 35
lived there, I can’t even remember now, he used to look from his porch, through the cornfields to 36
University Avenue. The other gentleman on the other side made me aware of when the church 37
was built and that the time the church was built he was informed they would never park on the 38
street when they attended church. The parking area would be in the back of the church and when 39
we moved in 45 years ago I thought well so much for that commitment because in front of my 40
house on Saturday evening and on Sunday there are church cars that are there. 41
42
I am aware of when school begins because that is when litter starts coming onto my property. I 43
don’t know where it is blown from. Also where on the exit side there is a house that has oranges 44
on the trees and the children and their parents, who allow them to do this, are picking oranges off 45
of that property. I’m sure the people do not care but to me it’s not a very good example that’s 46
set. 47
48
7
I’m aware of the number of cars mainly because now I back into my driveway because I find it’s 1
far safer to come onto Channing because of the cars that are coming out of the exit which is 100 2
feet of where my driveway is. Not only do I have to look out for Channing traffic, I now have to 3
look out for those people coming out of the exit. 4
5
The driveway, the congestion, the noise… Now I can be in my backyard and I cannot tell you 6
how many feet I am away from the play yard and I can hear them so I can imagine those that live 7
in the court nearby or in the back of the field, I can’t imagine what kind of noise they’re hearing. 8
I’ve got one thought. I’ve dealt with the city because of a person who is building a home next to 9
my property and I’m well aware that if you’ve got influence in the City you can have so many 10
exemptions that are given to a homeowner that it just appalls me so when they say they’re not 11
going to do so and so I do not believe it because I think the City will bend to anyone who really 12
puts up a fight because I’ve seen it happen to the home that was next to me. I can’t tell you how 13
many times the neighbors and I came down to the City and said you can’t allow this exemption. 14
They said yes we can and they did. I just hope that at this point you’re aware of the influence 15
this has on the community. That is it. 16
17
Vice-Chair Tanaka: Rita Vrhel followed by Irene Kane. 18
19
Ms. Rita Vrhel: I was hoping I was going to have a little more than 3 minutes to counter what 20
Mr. Miller and the school Principal said. 21
22
Acting Chair Michael: We can give you 5 minutes. 23
24
Ms. Vrhel: Great thank you. Can we have the slide back up of the school? I am the neighbor 25
right next to the school. I am right here. So in 1987 a Use Permit was put specific to the 26
expansion of the kindergarten into the convent. It mandated that the traffic flowed from this 27
angle over to here. There were no exceptions. It also mandated a staggered pickup program. 28
29
Since 2007, when a Traffic Study was apparently done, all the traffic has been going back here. 30
Irene is a neighbor and she indicated to me how noisy my house is now. I have double pane 31
windows, I sleep with a fan on, I have put trees around my house and I have a fence. I don’t 32
know what else I can do except put earplugs in my ears. 33
34
When this was presented, it was for a building and an after daycare program, which I thought 35
went with the kindergarten. Ms. French described it that way just now. Actually I do not believe 36
there is an existing permit for any after daycare or extended school program. I’ve worked with 37
Ms. Shah and Ms. French this last week to try to find those permits. They cannot find those 38
permits. I believe that this application is trying to grandfather in an existing after school or 39
extended care program which is attended free by 200 children. The parents come exactly or 40
before 5:30 when the program then becomes expensive. 41
42
So I would ask that the permit be bifurcated and that the daycare portion of this permit 1) be 43
clarified to whether it is for Pre-K only which is 30 students, I don’t have a problem with that, or 44
if the school is actually trying to grandfather in an extended daycare or aftercare program that 45
has never actually been permitted. I think it is owed to me and to the public to see the permits 46
which actually exist on the extended daycare program. The permits before the 59, the 64 and the 47
87 are very clear that school activity on the site will not be expanded and that there will be no 48
increase in noise, traffic, fumes, whatever to the neighbors. With the traffic being rerouted from 49
8
here to back here and around, I think you can see that those conditions of the 1987 Use Permit 1
are not being met and are being flagrantly violated. 2
3
I have paid attention to everything that the school has tried to do because I am right here. I 4
moved in in 1984 when we still had nuns. I have attended meetings. I try to keep up current on 5
things and I did not get any notice on any changes to the existing Use Permit to allow for an after 6
daycare program or extended daycare program and I would again ask that that be investigated. I 7
personally don’t have a problem with the extended daycare program. What I have a problem 8
with is the parking being shuttled past here and pretending that this is not an issue for the 9
neighbors. All the traffic went this way. I believe that the traffic can be moved across here. 10
11
The other thing is that when the neighbors talk about parking, in my packet that I gave you, you 12
will see some pictures and the pictures show the entire back portion of the school being fenced 13
off, permanently fenced off with chain link fence. There is a play yard, there is a volleyball 14
thing, there’s also a sandbox. So those are the parking spaces that the neighbors are complaining 15
about not being available. In my list to you I note how many parking spaces are actually 16
available. I think it’s something like 70 parking spaces, 178 parking spaces are mandated so I’m 17
not sure where they went. 18
19
Mr. Caswell has been our point person and part of my speech today has not been cleared with the 20
group but because I am the most affected by this revised traffic flow pattern I felt I had to speak 21
out otherwise this is my last chance. Mr. Caswell who has worked really hard with the group 22
and I appreciate Ms. Shah and Ms. French for talking with me, will present our bottom line 23
issues. In my packet to you I’ve listed all the applicable Use Permits that go with each of the 24
items that we are requesting. Somehow if you’re going to extend the school day by 45% which 25
the extended daycare program has done and if you’re going to increase the students from the 26
1987 level of 267 which would be an 18% increase to 315 then I do think that you need to 27
provide more than 50% of the fencing. I also think the school needs to provide the mandated 28
1964 landscaping. Thank you. 29
30
Acting Chair Michael: One question before you sit down about the adequacy of the fence height. 31
What is your position on the fence height? 32
33
Ms. Vrhel: My quiet yard which I love has turned into a noisy thoroughfare with all these cars 34
going by me twice and then twice. Somehow this is a business and to pretend that it’s not a 35
business is ludicrous so I think an 8 foot fence is not an unnecessary request. I also think the 36
landscaping needs to be there and the parking needs to be set back 7 feet as it was mandated in 37
the 1959 and 1964 permits. Thank you. 38
39
Vice-Chair Tanaka: The next speaker is Irene Kane followed by Lee Caswell. 40
41
Ms. Irene Kane: Hi folks, neighbors. I’m Irene Kane. I live directly across the street on the 42
corner across from the school on Channing and Harriett. I moved in 11 years ago in 2001, so 11 43
years ago. I don’t like the after school program because of the traffic. At that time of day, it’s 44
just busy because that’s commute time. After work it’s already busy along Channing and having 45
people come pick up their kids at that same time just adds all that much more traffic. It’s hard 46
for me many times to get onto Channing from Harriett which my garage is on the Harriett side so 47
I’m trying to get onto Channing from Harriett. Cars are parked on both sides up to the corner so 48
9
it’s hard to see what’s coming up and down Channing so I have to be pretty much out onto the 1
street before I see the cars coming in either direction so that’s dangerous. 2
3
Also, I have sat for Rita. I’ve been doing that for a few years now. The first time I stayed at her 4
house I was like, early in the morning, 7:30, I’d hear car doors slamming, kids you know, that 5
happens Monday through Friday and then again on Sunday. So you only get one day off which 6
is Saturday morning and those cars come, there is nothing between the fence and the parking lot. 7
The fence is on the asphalt. The cars come right up, right next to the fence so it’s right there. 8
The car doors slamming, the kids, the parents… So it’s six days a week that’s happening in the 9
morning. There’s no sleeping through that so that’s my objections. Thank you. 10
11
Vice-Chair Tanaka: The final speaker is Lee Caswell. 12
13
Mr. Lee Caswell: Thank you very much. I’d like to start off by thanking certainly the Planning 14
Staff and Rita, particularly, for helping us work through and understand what the issues were. 15
Also Evelyn from the school was helpful to bring us all together and have some meetings I think 16
that was the purpose and then lastly to John Miller for listening and helping me to understand 17
some of the context here. I think we’ve done a good job, many of our concerns were addressed 18
and brought into the revised Conditional Use Permit and we think you for that. 19
20
I’m going to address my time on three remaining issues that based on new things that we’ve 21
learned about a requirement for drop off parking, I’m sorry pick up parking. So we learned that 22
because roughly 80% of those students go to after daycare program that’s free, that they have to 23
park and sign out their kids. That was new information. When we talk about a split pickup we 24
have to abandon that and we haven’t come up with a better idea so far, in order to have all of the 25
traffic go through the back on the pick-up, which was different than what we expected. 26
27
As a result when we started looking through other things on prior permits we found there was a 7 28
foot setback from the property line to the beginning of the parking lot and that’s very important 29
because the parking lot abuts against residential bedrooms with kids in particular for Rita you 30
can see here. This parking lot is mandated by the existing permit which is in violation. It should 31
be 7 feet but is currently at 5 and the new Use Permit specifies 5. We should be carrying over 32
the existing 7 foot setback so we have an additional 2 feet of boundary or barrier between the 33
parking area and then by regulation there is also a 2 feet setback from there for concrete setbacks 34
for the wheels. So we’d have an additional buffer across the parking across the back. So that’s 35
number 1. 36
37
Number 2, is that on the enrollment itself, there are 267 students currently, we endorse 261 and 38
we endorsed an additional 30, got us to 291, we said a cap of 300 sounds reasonable. There are 39
10 classrooms; 10 times 30 would be a slight addition to what we have today. We can’t find any 40
justification for a number of 315. Given the neighborhood concerns for traffic it seems 41
unreasonable to accept a 315 student cap without any justification. We’d like to see the cap 42
brought down from 315 to 300. 43
44
Lastly, on the fence issue, as we looked at the requirement to have many people going through, 45
virtually all the cars go through the parking lot in the afternoon, and given the amount of 46
construction that’s going to be coming up with some big heavy equipment, we’d like to see an 8 47
foot redwood fence at the church’s expense across the back perimeter of the lines that would 48
extend effectively from about here which is already in, well this would be new, it would be 49
10
basically up to about this part here and that would provide both a visual barrier which would be 1
partly helpful I think and then also could help with some sound and certainly would help given 2
the amount of traffic going through there. Those are the issues that I have. Thank you. 3
4
Commissioner Tuma: When you’re talking about the fence, show me where you start and where 5
you end. 6
7
Mr. Caswell: Yes. Currently there is about a 4 foot fence I think that comes and so a new fence 8
has been installed behind 1125 and we’re proposing that that fence be continued across 1131 and 9
1139 and then back to right here which is…sorry, go ahead. 10
11
Commissioner Tuma: So that’s where you’re proposing the new fence end? I was over at the 12
site today and curious about why it would end there. As I recall, sort of from there on it is chain 13
link and it is 6 feet tall and there are other homes behind there. Just speaking on the 8 foot solid 14
fence ending there and then it going to chain link. 15
16
Mr. Caswell: Actually it may be kind of a provincial view because I was working with 17
neighbors along this line and we haven’t had a chance to ask the other neighbors whether they 18
would actually prefer that as well. I hazard to guess that if we ask other neighbors around that 19
they would prefer it as well. 20
21
Commissioner Tuma: As you get further towards the end of that line as it goes back you have a 22
two story house there that no matter what you do you’re not going to put out that noise down. In 23
between there is a partially vacant lot. I’m sure it belongs to other people but it’s unconstructed 24
and it seemed like there was, along there… I was just trying to get an understanding about why 25
you were stopping there. 26
27
Mr. Caswell: Probably lack of time just in terms of being able to poll everyone. 28
29
Commissioner Tuma: One other question, do you have any idea or the applicant can also answer 30
this question, as to how many linear feet we’re talking about from what you’ve asked for to… 31
32
Mr. Caswell: Good question. I have a guess. There’s roughly 50 feet across the back of your 33
lot. We have two additional lots of an additional 50 feet. That would be 100 feet and now its 0 34
feet. I’m guessing this is about 70 feet to here so my guess is about 170 feet. I think the cost is 35
about $2,200. There’s a fence here as well. The proposal currently is at 50%. That is included 36
in the current write-up. Across this boundary I think the general consideration from the 37
neighborhood as we talked through the issues is was we’re allowing additional students, we 38
haven’t said we want to block the program, we’re anxious for them to get started too, is that 39
given the externalities that were imposed on the neighbors by the construction and issues that if 40
we covered this portion, but I haven’t told the other neighbors so I can’t speak to them. 41
42
Acting Chair Michael: Any other questions? So with no other questions, closing comments 43
from the Applicant? Three minutes. 44
45
Mr. Miller: Thank you. First off, I want to say that these are not big things and if the school 46
could enact them they would. The reason we have what we have is because we’ve come up 47
against a hard spot and let me recount those a little bit. Going to 7 feet landscape would reduce 48
11
the size of the parking lot just enough so that the garbage trucks requiring turning radius couldn’t 1
make it so we’d do 7 feet no problem but we don’t have it. 2
3
In terms of a lot of the traffic, I drive down Channing to get here and I believe Channing is a 4
very busy street and the amount of traffic that comes from the school is a small increment of that. 5
The other thing that you should understand is that at one time the church had a full schedule of 6
masses, daily mass, every day at 8 or 7:30, and a full schedule of masses on Sunday. So they’ve 7
reduced to 2 masses a week so this site is much less intensively used than it ever was. As I said 8
before, at one time there were probably 400 students there. 9
10
The other things that we’ve talked about, we’ve come up with, is to put staff parking along here 11
only so that there would be cars coming in and out. The other thing, I think we’re also going to 12
put up a noise courtesy sign and I’m sure the Principal will take care of those people who are 13
dropping off in front. She has monitors. We can definitely put a monitor out front so that would 14
be taken care of. 15
16
In terms of the 8 foot versus 7 foot, let me explain what an 8 foot fence permit is. An 8 foot 17
fence is an engineered fence which means that to my disgruntle on many projects, the structural 18
engineer ends up drilling a 5 or 6 foot deep 12 inch diameter pier and then on top of that then 19
you rise 8 feet so that would mean that all along here would be drilled piers in the ground and 20
then we would have to access that. 21
22
The other thing is that, I have some pictures. This is what the drive through looks like. You see 23
the guards, the cones. If it’s needed to be done, the school is going to do it. This is the front, this 24
is Ms. Vrhel’s property here. This is her fence. Obviously the church is interested in having a 25
good looking fence so that’s not an issue. But their policy always has been 50%. 26
27
This is the extent of the traffic, the heaviest time in the afternoon. There’s never a queue. 28
There’s never people waiting and if they could be more courteous I’m sure they would be. I’m 29
sure they’re being instructed to if there’s a problem. 30
31
You’re looking towards Channing. This is the Caswell’s, I forget their name and this is Rita’s 32
right? You can see that there is already a good amount of landscaping there. Two feet is not 33
going to make an effective difference. So those are some of my points. There are others I can 34
make. I want to reiterate, I think that they’ve tried to be good neighbors. They provide a very 35
good, very needed service for the community. There is strong community backing from the 36
donors and so I think that you could say this program really needs to go forward and finish with 37
what we have that we think we can agree on and we think it’s reasonable. Thanks. 38
39
Acting Chair Michael: So with that we’ll close the Public Hearing and will have discussions of 40
Motions, Recommendations by the Commission. First the Commissioners will have 3 minutes 41
for questions of the staff. Ok, Commissioner Tanaka. 42
43
Acting Vice-chair Tanaka: Can staff address some of the questions or the issues Rita brought up 44
about the setback? Is that really true? And the other points she said about parking on the site 45
being available and a few of the other points she brought up? I’d really like to know what is 46
staff’s point of view. 47
48
12
Ms. French: Some items were stated in comments. Of course I was distracted reading this at the 1
same time, and perhaps they coincide with the same information. The first bit is the 7 foot 2
setback. In the submittal that Ms. Vhrel gave to us tonight, it comments on the older Use 3
Permits which do have a condition saying a 7 foot planting strip is required. I can go and look 4
because I have the paperwork about that concrete wheel stop. Often we had a situation where a 5
wheel stop is placed and a car will hang over into the planting area. In this case I’m guessing 6
that we can go back and look at that 7 foot distance and a wheel stop is at that 7 foot so the car 7
hangs over. She also references Chapter 18.54 that specifies at least a 5 foot setback; it doesn’t 8
say at least a 7 feet setback in the code - planting strip, sorry - 5 foot planting strip is required by 9
code; we often see at the ARB the 5 feet planting strip, cars hanging into that so sometimes 10
wheels hang into that 5 foot landscaping. So, in this case, 1964 Use Permit, it talks about a 7 11
foot planting strip…instead of having 7 feet of landscaping you have 5 feet of landscaping and 2 12
feet of asphalt. 13
14
Acting Vice-chair Tanaka: Just to make sure I’m clear, so are you saying that yes, the way it is 15
currently configured today is following the correct code? Yes or better. That parking lot does 16
not need to be reconfigured to code. What we heard earlier from Rita was not correct with that. 17
18
Ms. French: Her statement about the prior Use Permits having a specific statement about a 7 19
foot planting strip is correct. What’s out there is not a 7 foot planting strip; it’s a 5 foot planting 20
strip with additional 2 feet of asphalt, not planted. The theory is to keep the cars back away from 21
the fence 7 feet, and hanging over into the landscaping. 22
23
Acting Vice-chair Tanaka: So the way the parking lot is currently configured, it’s meeting with 24
the Grant Deed and meeting with the code requires? It is meeting all the requirements and it 25
doesn’t need to be changed or does it need to be changed? Is it correct or not correct, that’s what 26
I’m looking for. 27
28
Ms. French: If one wanted to go back in time and say make sure you provide 2 feet more 29
planting ground cover within the 2 feet of asphalt, I suppose we can impose upon them to do 30
that. I don’t know that it solves the problem that is being voiced about keeping the cars parked 31
back from the fence. It simply is a car hanging over into planted matter. 32
33
Acting Vice-chair Tanaka: I was trying to understand whether the cars needed to be moved back 34
2 feet extra or not. 35
36
Ms. Silver: If I could just clarify as I understand it, the Municipal Code requires 5 feet of 37
landscape. The Conditional Use Permit provision though requires something more restrictive, 7 38
feet of landscape and currently the project complies with the code but does not appear to comply 39
with the Conditional Use Permit. 40
41
Acting Vice-chair Tanaka: So what Rita said is correct. 42
43
Ms. French: It is correct in part; but it is not correct in the statement, the written statement that 44
says what this code section says. The code section says at least 5 feet. It does not say 7 feet, 45
that’s the difference, if that’s helpful. The second part of the question is related to parking spots. 46
47
Acting Chair Michael: I’m going to give you an additional 2 minutes so you have a total of 5. 48
49
13
Ms. French: Let me answer the other part of the question for the next Commissioner, because he 1
did ask about the number of parking spaces. 2
3
Acting Vice-chair Tanaka: It’s supposed to be 178 and there are only 70 parking spots right 4
now. 5
6
Ms. French: I’m going to let Rina answer that. 7
Rina Shah: I can explain it to you on the map. 8
9
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Well, let me explain to you what I heard and then you can tell me if 10
it’s correct. I heard a claim that said there are only 70 parking spots right now and there are 11
supposed to be 178 parking spots, so there are 100 parking spots missing. That’s a pretty big 12
bold claim, is that correct? 13
14
Rina Shah: You look at it just for the school. You have to look at the breakdown, the church, 15
there’s a church; the users are different on the parcel. The parking is satisfying the school and the 16
morning church use and handicap and that total is 70 spaces. 17
18
Ms. French: If I might add to that we have some tallying from the 1999 Use Permit 19
documentation and it appears that it says 171 parking spaces. That’s based on a church seating 20
of 683 occupants divided by 4. There’s a seating capacity based on the occupancy of the church 21
and so that same 171 parking spaces is what was previously… 22
23
Acting Vice-chair Tanaka: So how much should the project really have? Should it be 171 or 24
should it be 70? 25
26
Rina Shah: I would think it’s satisfying the parking requirements of the school and the church 27
morning services. There are a few people who use, the pastor and also we have the study, we 28
have the information on the plans and there was a study which was done in 2007. 29
30
Acting Vice-chair Tanaka: So as a church then it’s supposed to be 171 and as a school it’s 70 31
and since it operates as a school and a church it only has to have 70? 32
33
Ms. French: There is a mix of uses here. The school is not operating at the same time as the 34
church, so the church parking suffices for the school when the church is not in session. It sounds 35
like they have two services not at the same time as the school. That’s what I heard them say. 36
37
Acting Chair Michael: Going to other members of the Commission, Commissioner Tuma? 38
39
Commissioner Tuma: What does the current Use Permit allow by way of after care? The 40
current Use Permit, not what they are applying for. 41
42
Ms. French: The last Use Permit, the effective Use Permit for this property is from 2008, and 43
not noted as a statement in the Use Permit Approval paperwork or conditions, it does not state 44
anything about after school care; however the traffic report prepared for that Use Permit talked 45
about the extended care program that existed and the applicant says it’s been existing since 1998. 46
It’s hard from the evidence, looking through all of our electronic data, it was hard to lay hands on 47
other than there was a hearing in 1999, its quite extensive but I’m not aware of anything further 48
other than there was a traffic study talking about the existence of extended care in 2007. 49
14
1
Commissioner Tuma: So is there anything in the existing Use Permit that defines the hours of 2
operation? 3
4
Ms. French: Yes. 5
6
Rina Shah: Yes, 7:00 – 8:00 in the morning, and 3:00 – 6:00 in the afternoon. 7
8
Commissioner Panelli: In the existing Use Permit. 9
10
Ms. French: The traffic report said it was… 11
12
Commissioner Tuma: But my question is very specific. The Use Permit, does it define the hours 13
of operation in the current existing Use Permit. 14
15
Ms. French: I believe it does. If you give me a moment I will go find that, unless Rina knows 16
more specifically. 17
18
Rina Shah: The current Use Permit dates back to the last Use Permit… 19
20
Commissioner Tuma: Not what’s being applied for but what is currently in effect. 21
22
Rina Shah: It’s 2007; it specified 7:00 to 8:00 in the morning and 3:00 to 6:00 after school. 23
24
Commissioner Tuma: For hours of operation of the school? 25
26
Rina Shah: The school is operating from 8:00 to 3:00. And the day care program is from 7:00 to 27
8:00 and 3:00 to 6:00. 28
29
Commissioner Tuma: So the current Use Permit says 7:00 to 8:00 and 3:00 to 6:00 for before 30
and after care. And does it limit in any way the number of kids that can be involved in either 31
pre- or after care, other than the overall limit of 315? 32
33
Rina Shah: No. 34
35
Commissioner Tuma: Question probably for Counsel. 8 foot fence would require a variance. Is 36
that right? It would require some other discretionary permit. 37
38
Ms. French: Because it is bundled with this Conditional Use Permit, typically variances are staff 39
level affair unless called out for hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission. 40
41
Commissioner Tuma: So my question would be, in our recommendation could we recommend 42
the requirement of an 8 foot fence because obviously there is no DEE or variance been noticed 43
for tonight but could we make that recommendation or does this require a different process? 44
45
Ms. French: To me it would seem you could recommend that staff work with the Applicant to 46
put that into the notice, and there is a 21 day comment period about that and then a decision 47
could be made at staff level and called out for a hearing in front of the Planning and 48
15
Transportation Commission. Depending on straw votes or whatever a determination… It would 1
go to Council eventually. 2
3
Commissioner Tuma: When is this supposed to go to Council? 4
5
Ms. French: November 5th. 6
7
Commissioner Tuma: So we do have 21 days. 8
9
Ms. French: Or it can be a follow up for recommendation that Council would put in what they 10
do for process after the fact. 11
12
Commissioner Tuma: In terms of construction of the 8 foot fence, if you have a six foot fence 13
with a two foot lattice does it require the type of engineering that the Applicant was saying? 14
15
Ms. French: A lattice is open construction; I guess it may not need as much as a wind load 16
calculation. 17
18
Mr. Aknin: It comes down to a wind load issue so it varies from building to building, here it 19
seems like the status is don’t go above 7 feet, it doesn’t require a building permit, so I think it 20
also depends on how open that lattice actually is on top. Some building departments do some 21
50%, if it’s open by 50% wind capacity... (INAUDIBLE 1:15) 22
23
Commissioner Tuma: And one last question should be for the Applicant. Have you received 24
any sort of price quote for this fencing? 25
26
Mr. Miller: Based on some calculations it is 230 feet would be about $13,000 or $14,000 27
dollars. If it was engineered fencing it would be much more than double that. 28
29
Commissioner Tuma: Thank you. 30
31
Acting Chair Michael: Commissioner Panelli. 32
33
Commissioner Panelli: I have one simple question. Is there something in the code that talks 34
about what is acceptable time of operation for a school is? If a school use is permitted, is that 35
defined as 8:00 to 3:00? Or is it… 36
37
Ms. French: Not in the code. Generally what we’ve seen going beyond what your question is 38
maybe, I think trying to get to practices, good practices, common practices I would say typically 39
we would prefer to have some staggered throughout drop-off and pickup behavior, so we don’t 40
have everybody converging within the same 15 minutes upon the school of drop off and pick up. 41
So the practice of having extended pickups is generally a favorable practice so it doesn’t back up 42
onto the street. We’ve seen that at other places like Keyes school and we’ve worked with them 43
to spread that out so as not to impact traffic in the neighborhood. 44
45
Commissioner Panelli: My question is more broad than that though. I’m trying to understand. If 46
this were not subject to a Conditional Use Permit, this were a site that wasn’t already zoned 47
properly for a school, is there something that says school operates between x and y hours or? 48
49
16
Ms. French: Not private schools. This is a Catholic school, it’s considered a private school and 1
they have certain curriculum standards I imagine, but there is nothing in the code. 2
3
Commissioner Panelli: So there’s nothing in the code that says a “school use means”? That’s 4
what I was asking. 5
6
Acting Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 7
8
Commissioner Alcheck: This is not just questions, comments as well? I think based on what’s 9
being presented here, I don’t think starting weekdays at 7:30 is unreasonable, I think if you live 10
next to a church I think you can expect a weekend day to start earlier than normal. I think there 11
is a requirement in the State of California about properties that are noncommercial, so R1 zoned 12
properties and their fences, I think are split 50/50 and Council can comment on this. I don’t 13
think that a good neighbor fence on the fence line, a fence is on the neighbor line, on the 14
property line, I don’t think you can force them to pay for it all, which I think is important, 15
because there’s, I have some personal experience in this actually, but when you’re dealing with 16
250 feet of fence, let’s take the neighbor that lives’ right on the corner there, she has a fence that 17
faces the front of the street that I noticed, a white fence. If the school puts up a redwood fence it 18
won’t match the fence she has facing the front. Every neighbor has different tastes and 19
aesthetics, you might have Mediterranean homes, modern homes, and fencing is particularly 20
personal so there’s a part of me that believes that this is absolutely something that the neighbors 21
and church can get together on, work together on and sometimes the best way for us to work 22
together on something is to share the expense and I also think there may be some requirement 23
they share the expense under California law. 24
25
Ms. Silver: I’m not sure I have heard reference of the Good Neighbor 50/50 Policy in residential 26
neighborhoods. I’m not sure that is actually the case and how it would apply to a Conditional 27
Use Permit. Anyway I don’t think it applies here because it’s not a purely residential 28
neighborhood. 29
30
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, I will keep going, I think that this kind of clarifies what 31
Commissioner Tanaka was asking, I sort of acknowledge that maybe there should be 7 feet of 32
landscaping. Whether we should deal with that is a good question, it sounds to me though like 33
there’s 5 feet of landscaping and 2 feet of asphalt in which case the additional 2 feet of required 34
landscaping if we were to enforce that condition won’t necessarily accomplish a goal that would 35
increase the distance so really I don’t know if that’s any relevance issue. I think that requiring an 36
8 foot engineered fence, I think that would be probably a mistake because there is a lot more 37
involved in that and I think that but again I’m also encouraging putting that through, I am also 38
encouraging us not to force the church to not take that expense on their own. So if the neighbors 39
and the church would like to spend money on an engineered fence, I think they should do that. 40
I’m not suggesting it’s required I don’t know if an additional 2 feet would impact noise at all. 41
42
My last comment is about the 315 number and I think that’s a big jump, 20%. 18 percent 43
roughly that’s a big jump, and the count of the students per car (two-something in the morning 44
actually is impressive) and we have to consider that there was a comment by the Applicant about 45
economic feasibility and the reason why they increased the number to makes it more 46
economically feasible for them to run the program. So I’m not sure how I feel about this 315, 47
but I’m not opposed to it being based on noise and traffic. I sort of wish that the relationship 48
here was a little better. I think there are issues that are maybe unrelated to this that they need to 49
17
work out like trash and parking in the street, pickups, but I really don’t… way to address this 1
issue it’s going to be very costly and very difficult to appease everyone. 2
3
Acting Chair Michael: So I will add a few comments. Most of the issues that I had have already 4
been questioned or addressed earlier and I believe that the reason why this matter was continued 5
from a prior meeting of the Commission was our perception was there hadn’t been adequate 6
opportunity for the Applicant to work with the neighbors even though they had made some 7
efforts those efforts weren’t successful and we distinctly had the impression in June that that 8
communication had really not occurred in a satisfactory manner. 9
10
I think based on my legal training there are some narrow issues that we have before us this 11
evening that based on the Public Comment there were other issues that maybe predated this 12
particular complication and there will be more issues in the future separate and apart from the 13
issues on the table. 14
15
I believe that the whole issue of neighborhood outreach, communication, and working together 16
on those issues is probably important in the experience both parties will have. That’s really my 17
main point is that it’s pretty striking as a Commissioner the absence of that process working well 18
when we first reviewed this in June and I really applaud the efforts of both the neighbors, Mr. 19
Caswell, the representative of the neighbors, the Principal, the architect and others who have 20
redoubled their efforts to open up dialogue because it’s clear it would bode well in the future. 21
With that, let me invite the Commission to make a Motion. 22
23
MOTION 24
Acting Chair Michael: Commissioner Tuma. 25
Commissioner Tuma: I’m going to move to Staff Recommendation with the following changes: 26
1) The Applicant be required to construct an 8 foot fence along the approximately 200 odd linear 27
feet are described. That they would be required to do that and that’s actually the only 28
modification, I’ll address some issues in comments but Staff Recommendation with a 29
requirement that the Applicant be required to construct an 8 foot fence at the Applicant’s 30
expense. I’ll comment as to why if I get a Second on the Motion. 31
32
SECOND 33
Acting Chair Michael: There’s a second from Commissioner Tuma, Tanaka 34
35
Acting Vice-chair Tanaka: Second. 36
37
Acting Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 38
39
Commissioner Alcheck: We haven’t heard… The point person for the neighbors, I’ll say I 40
believe they’ve had ample time to communicate with the other neighbors. Its 250 feet. We don’t 41
know that the neighbors on the other side want that. 42
43
Commissioner Tuma: That’s not what I’m asking for. I’m asking for essentially when Mr. 44
Caswell was up there he pointed out a starting point and ending point and I’m suggesting to end 45
it where he had requested. I had asked the question about the balance of it but given the fact that 46
this has been noticed, the other neighbors aren’t here to say anything about it. My proposal is 47
that it end where Mr. Caswell had noted, about 230 feet. I looked at the plans. It’s a little bit 48
hard to say but it’s somewhere in that neighborhood. 49
18
1
Commissioner Alcheck: Just to be really clear here are you suggesting that it’s on the property 2
line or inside the property line? 3
4
Commissioner Tuma: I don’t know. There is some question as to where the property line is. 5
6
Commissioner Alcheck: I only mention that because I believe again that there is a legal 7
requirement that you can’t get around in the State of California that requires that a property 8
owner to build on the property line at his sole expense. 9
10
Commissioner Tuma: Well let me go ahead and make some comments. One thing is I think our 11
Council has said in the context of the CUP we can in fact require it so in the absence of that I’m 12
going to go with that. Here’s my thinking. There is a requirement in the current Use Permit that 13
requires a 7 foot setback if you will but there is also a practical issue here which is, from what 14
we’ve heard from the Applicant, that they can’t do that and have enough room to turn with the 15
larger trucks so the reason for that 7 foot setback is to give more of a barrier to the neighbors and 16
in between a Commercial and a Residential Use. I understand this is all residentially zoned but 17
the fact of the matter is we have effectively a Commercial Use that’s abutting a Residential Use. 18
So my feeling was, let’s do a compromise or a trade-off here. We’ll give instead of coming up 19
with a requirement that would make essentially as I understand it, the operation infeasible, in 20
other words going to the 7 foot setback let’s compensate that by having a higher fence. The idea 21
is more of a barrier because that’s what the setback is all about. That’s the reason to make that 22
trade. Not have them go to what’s in the current Conditional Use Permit by way of a setback but 23
rather provide more of a buffer through a higher fence. To me that seems, I’ve had occasion to 24
build quite a bit of fencing myself in various different contexts, not in Palo Alto, so I don’t know 25
but typically with a two foot lattice on top of a six foot redwood it is not required to be 26
engineered but I’m not professing to say that’s the case in Palo Alto, I don’ know what the 27
answer to that is. But whatever it is I think that may be the cost of doing business here from the 28
perspective of the Applicant if they want to add the extra capacity they’ve got to give back some 29
extra buffer so that’s my thinking. 30
31
Acting Chair Michael: Thank you. There’s been a Motion and a Second. Would you like to say 32
anything further on support of your Motion? Would you like to comment on your Second 33
Commissioner Tanaka? 34
35
Commissioner Tanaka: My language is actually the same as Commissioner Tuma. I was 36
thinking about the other thing which is the parking issue which I’m still not really clear on but 37
assuming that 171 is a fair compromise it doesn’t solve the parking problem but I support the 38
Motion on the same rational Commissioner Tuma spoke about. 39
40
Commissioner Alcheck: I want to suggest that I’m a little worried about the requirement 41
because if we do require an engineered fence and sometimes these wind requirements require 42
you to do two feet underneath or even before and sometimes concrete posts. If there are trees on 43
the neighbor’s side of the property that are lining their fences, whatever is built could destroy 44
their roots and I mention this because I was involved in a project where they had to put up a 45
fence and they eliminated 67 trees along 295 feet, 67 35 year old trees and as soon as that came 46
apparent nobody wanted it. I want to avoid that in two months coming back here once we realize 47
it. I’m just going to voice that concern. I don’t know how many mature trees are in the back of 48
their property along this fence but that could be affected by this. 49
19
1
Acting Chair Michael: So is there any further? Commissioner Tanaka 2
3
Commissioner Tanaka: How many mature trees are there along the fence line? 4
5
Mr. Aknin: One thing that we could do between now and the City Council meeting is work with 6
our Building division as well as with the City Arborist to see if there are any conflicts and make 7
that information available before the City Council. 8
9
Rina Shah: I want to add that there is a chain link fence along the property line so for this fence 10
you will have to give us direction as to where the new fence has to go because the chain link 11
fence will not be removed from my understanding… (INAUDIBLE 1:33) …It’s on the church 12
property. On the property line. 13
14
Ms. French: If we can clarify the Motion: is this a fence that would be along the property line 15
basically 100% church cost would it be church property? 16
17
Commissioner Tuma: Where was the fence that was proposed to be built? On what piece of 18
property was that? 19
20
Rina Shah: The church. The current buffer is a 5 feet buffer. 21
22
Commissioner Tuma: That would be yes. What’s the reason to leave the chain link fence there? 23
24
Rina Shah: Safety and security. It’s strong and has lasted for so many years. It’s not a visual 25
barrier to the church and the redwood fence would actually provide a visual barrier from the 26
church to the neighbors. 27
28
Commissioner Tuma: If I could, I’d like to hear from the Applicant on this topic. He seems to 29
have something to say. If you can come to the microphone so it can get recorded? Thank you. 30
31
Mr. Miller: As in any school environment, security is of the utmost importance. We see many 32
wooden fences that have boards that kind of slide to the side once in a while so we strongly 33
recommend keeping the chain link fence for security. We can’t guarantee that wood fences 34
would turn out 50/50 or part of neighbors would be maintained. 35
36
Commissioner Tuma: Okay. Let me ask you, if the requirement were for the redwood fence to 37
be constructed at the church’s cost, and maintained at the church’s cost would that solve the 38
issue or would you still want to keep the chain link fence up? 39
40
Mr. Miller: We’d probably want to keep the chain link fence up. The other thing I might say 41
about the fence is that a there are things that structures over our property line, if we are forced to 42
put up a chain link fence, then we will be putting it on the property line or close to the property 43
line… The other issue is that if you force us to come inside the property line we’re taking the 44
landscape strip which we are at the maximum now. If we have to put a wooden fence in front of 45
the chain link fence, then that’s eating into that 7, that 5 feet of landscaping. 46
47
Acting Chair Michael: So I’d like to offer a friendly amendment and that would be that the 8 48
foot fence would be constructed and maintained by the church. 49
20
1
Ms. French: I’m sorry I missed that. 2
3
Acting Chair Michael: The friendly amendment is that would be constructed and maintained at 4
the expense and responsibility of the applicant. 5
6
Commissioner Tuma: I’ll take that. 7
8
Commissioner Tanaka: Me too. 9
10
Commissioner Alcheck: This fence is not on the property line, it’s on the interior, just inside of 11
it. 12
13
Acting Chair Michael: So, are there any other question or comments before we move on? 14
Commissioner Panelli? 15
16
Commissioner Panelli: It begs the question, if there is now a fence in the landscape strip, is it 17
okay to have a fence inside a five foot planter setback? If the answer is yes then I’d say let’s 18
progress to a vote. 19
20
Mr. Aknin: I would say yes because it’s serving the same purpose as the 5 foot landscape strip 21
that’s there to create a buffer, the fence is just there as more of a buffer. 22
23
Commissioner Panelli: It’s sort of implied but I wanted it explicit before I vote on it. 24
25
Ms. French: The code does say the landscape strip may be required to include a fence… 26
27
Commissioner Tuma: So, to the extent that it would otherwise be encroachment to that, it is 28
permitted. 29
30
Acting Chair Martinez: So having concluded our discussion let’s proceed to a vote. All in favor 31
of the Motion? Aye. Any opposed? One opposed. So the Motion passes with a 4 to 1 vote. 32
Commissioners Tuma, Michael, Tanaka and Panelli in favor and Commissioner Alcheck 33
opposed. 34
35
MOTION PASSED (4 – 1) 36
37
City of Palo Alto Page 1
PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: Rina Shah, Project Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: June 13, 2012
SUBJECT: 1095 Channing Ave [11PLN-00437]: Request by John Miller, on behalf of
Elizabeth Seton School and Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, for a
Conditional Use Permit Amendment allowing the operation of a new Pre-
Kindergarten program within an expanded building, and an after school day
care program, associated with an existing private school (K-8 program) at
1095 Channing Avenue. Zone: R-1. Environmental Assessment: Exempt
from CEQA per section 15301.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City
Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to approve
Conditional Use Permit amendment 11PLN-00437 based upon the findings and conditions in the
Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
On April 25, 2012, the Director of Planning and Community Environment tentatively approved
the requested Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow the operation of a new pre-
Kindergarten program, an expanded Kindergarten program and an after school extended care in a
new building adjacent to the existing K-8 program. Within the prescribed 14 calendar day
timeframe, one request for a public hearing was received for the application. The written request
is included as Attachment F to this staff report.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is located in a residential zone, primarily accessed from Channing Avenue and
bordered by single-family homes on west, east and north sides (Attachment B). Use Permits for
the existing private educational facility have been in place for decades. The use permit #87-UP-
40, granted on October 29, 1987, amended use permits 59-UP-26 and 64-UP-7 and allowed the
location and operation of a church, rectory, convent and school and the use of a portion of the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
first floor of the existing convent for a Kindergarten classroom. The 99-ARB-57 and 99-UP-6
approvals allowed for a modular Kindergarten classroom addition.
Hours of operation of the existing school are from 7 am to 5:30 pm Monday through Friday. The
peak hours of drop-off and pick-up of students for both the existing school program and the
proposed amendment to the program are as described in the applicant’s project letter dated
received November 29, 2011 (Attachment E). There is a one-way entry from the easternmost
driveway on Channing Avenue, and one-way exit from the westernmost driveway along
Channing Avenue (see site layout sheet A1.1). There is an existing side parking area that serves
as the main student access to the school with 40 parking spaces.
PROJECT DESCRITION
The St Elizabeth Seton Elementary School proposes to remove the existing modular
Kindergarten structure and replace it with a new 3,383 square feet building, adjacent and attached
to the existing K-8 school building. An amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit is
required for the operation of a new Pre-Kindergarten program and after school daycare.
The number of students, including preschool, would not exceed 315 and 44 parking spaces would
be provided by restriping of the existing parking area. The existing patterns of drop-offs before
school would be unchanged. Because of the new after school program, the pick-up times would
extend later in the day (until 6 pm).
As described in the approval letter, dated April 25, 2012 (Attachment D), the proposal consists of
the following components:
(1) A new Pre-K program
(2) An expansion of existing Kindergarten program
(3) After school day care program
(4) Hours of operation from 7 am to 6 pm Monday through Friday.
The project’s landscape plans show removal and replacement of four trees on site. These have
been reviewed and approved by the City arborist. Additionally, five feet of landscape buffer and
screening are proposed to be maintained; new evergreen hedges and shrubs would be planted to
provide visual screening along the fences abutting adjacent residential property lines (Site Plan,
Attachment C).
DISCUSSION
Hearing Request
On April 30, a request for hearing by Planning and Transportation Commission was received.
The hearing requester, a residential neighbor, cited the following:
1. She noted that the convent building is not correctly labeled on plans;
2. Regarding the rules of church parking, she asked if the yellow stripes remarking each
parking space will start 5 feet from the fence/property line;
3. She questioned the accuracy of the applicant’s statement, “no loss of parking spaces,” due
to new construction.
4. She stated that the five foot setback rules are not being followed and asked staff to
ascertain the accuracy of school’s proposed plans with required 5 feet parking setbacks.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
5. She noted that cars parked up to the fence with only a thin amount of shrubbery and a
chain link fence between property lines.
6. She asked if the traffic circulation will occur as it was before the amendment.
Response
On May 1, the applicant, John Miller Architects, addressed this neighbor’s issues regarding
parking and restriping of parking lot with a revised site plan (Attachment C). The applicant
confirmed her desire to continue with the hearing process. Her concerns are addressed below:
1. The plans have been revised to show the convent building as residence.
2. Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.54.040 (a), minimum standard for perimeter landscaping is
five feet wide landscape strip. The project plans show five wide feet landscape strip
between the exterior boundary of the parking area and the nearest adjacent property/fence
line.
3. The project plans show 44 parking spaces, which is more than the existing 40 spaces and
therefore there is “no loss of parking spaces” due to restriping.
4. Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.54.040 (h), wheel stops shall be installed to protect the
required landscape areas and stop the wheel no closer than 5 feet from perimeter fencing.
The project plans shall be revised to show wheel stops.
5. Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.54.040 (f)(1), a landscape screen or buffer consisting of a
combination of trees and shrubs shall be used to create a dense visual buffer. The site
plan sheet A1.1 (Attachment C) shows new trees and shrubs to be planted along the
perimeter abutting residential property lines.
6. There is no change in drop-off and pick-up entry and exit areas. As per project plans
dated March 08, 2012, there is a one-way entry from the easternmost driveway and one-
way exit from the westernmost driveway along Channing Avenue.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The Conditional Use Permit approval is based upon the findings indicated under Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.010(c), subject to Conditions of Approval, listed below:
(1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, as conditioned, 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.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed building is located on the
eastern corner behind the existing church and convent, aligned with the main internal
circulation, and will replace an existing undersized Kindergarten structure with newer and
larger facility providing both Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten classrooms with extended
daycare and shall be within the allowable square footage for the site. Additionally, the new
structure will provide a prominent entrance at the existing parent drop off and parking area.
The new classroom expansion proposes to meet the maximum student enrollment of 315
students allowed for the use and there shall be adequate parking spaces to accommodate this
conditional use. The traffic pattern and vehicular circulation shall be conducted in an orderly
way and shall not generate excessive trip demand. New trees and landscaping is proposed in
the 5-foot setback between the building and adjacent residential property line to provide
additional buffering and replace the trees that are proposed to be removed within the new
City of Palo Alto Page 4
building footprint. Conditions of approval have been imposed to ensure the project conforms
to the submitted plans.
(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.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project is replacing an
existing 1999 Kindergarten/restroom addition with a larger Kindergarten/restroom and Pre
Kindergarten/restroom addition with after school daycare program that would be consistent
with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The total proposed 3,383 square feet addition will
include exterior changes and addition that will provide high quality design and site planning
and shall be compatible to the existing structure in design and materials. The school shall be
conducted in a manner that will support and promote the provision of comprehensive school
and childcare services by public and private providers as a conditional use in R-1 zoning
district and maintain Palo Alto’s varied neighborhoods while sustaining vitality of its public
facilities. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff believes there are no
other substantive policy implications.
TIMELINE
This project is tentatively scheduled for Council Consent Calendar on July 23, 2012. A minimum
of three votes is required for Council to remove the project from the consent calendar.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per
Section 15301.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Record of Land Use Action
B. Location Map
C. Site Plan*
D. Tentative Approval Letter, April 25, 2012
E. Applicant Submittal*
F. Request for Public Hearing
G. Plans (Commission only)*
* Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff
City of Palo Alto Page 5
COURTESY COPIES:
John Miller
Rita Vrhel
PREPARED BY: Rina Shah, Project Planner
REVIEWED BY: Amy French, Acting Assistant Director of Current Planning
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL:
Curtis Williams, Director
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 1 of 20
PLANNING& TRANSPORTATION 1
COMMISSION 2
MINUTES 3
4
==================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26======================
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 Meeting 5
6:00 PM, Council Conference Room 6
1st Floor, Civic Center 7
250 Hamilton Avenue 8
Palo Alto, California 94301 9
10
ROLL CALL: 6:06 PM 11
12
Commissioners: Staff: 13
Eduardo Martinez – Chair (absent) Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager 14
Susan Fineberg – V. Chair (absent) Donald Larkin, Sr. Assistant City Attorney 15
Samir Tuma Rina Shah, Planning Tech 16
Arthur Keller – Acting Chair Chitra Moitra, Planner 17
Greg Tanaka – Acting V. Chair Robin Ellner, Administrative Assoc. III 18
Mark Michael 19
20
21
22
Acting Chair Keller: Let me call the meeting to order of the Planning and Transportation 23
Commission for June 13, 2012. 24
25
Robin Ellner, Administrative Assoc. III: Vice Chair Fineberg, Acting Chair Keller, Chair 26
Martinez, Commissioner Michael, Commissioner or Acting, I’m sorry, Vice Chair Tanaka, 27
Commissioner Tuma. Four present. And before we start, the meeting of June 27th, thank you, 28
has been canceled so the next meeting will be July 11th. And that is it on the updates for tonight. 29
30
Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: Acting Chair Keller, I’d like to have our City 31
Attorney make a special statement due to our minimum member of Commissioners present 32
representing a quorum, but just a special statement from the City Attorney’s office. 33
34
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you, please do. 35
36
Donald Larkin, Sr. Assistant City Attorney: I was gonna point out that four is the, is a quorum, 37
but it’s barely a quorum. So if anybody does need to leave the dais for any reason this would be 38
the time to use that rarely used request for personal privilege to ask for a short recess if any of 39
the Commissioners need to leave the dais because all four Commissioners should remain at the 40
dais throughout the meeting. 41
42
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. So, the first thing we have, the first thing we have is public 43
comment. So, I don’t have any cards from anybody who wishes to speak to Oral 44
Communications. Are there any cards? Ok. With that I will open Oral Communications and 45
close Oral Communications. The first item on our Agenda is 1095 Channing Avenue and a 46
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 2 of 20
request for a conditional use permit. And this is an Appeal of the request for the conditional use 1
permit, and I believe first we’ll have a Staff presentation. 2
3
NEW BUSINESS. 4
Public Hearing: 5
6
1. 1095 Channing Avenue: Request by John Miller, on behalf of Elizabeth Seton School and 7
Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment allowing the 8
operation of a new Pre-Kindergarten program within an expanded building, and an after 9
school day care program, associated with an existing private school (K-8 program) at 1095 10
Channing Avenue. Zone: R-1. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per section 11
15301. 12
13
Mr. Turner: Yes, thank you Acting Chair Keller, Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager 14
from the Planning Department. Staff is recommending that the Planning and Transportation 15
Commission recommend that the City Council uphold the Planning and Community 16
Environments Director’s decision to approve the conditional use permit based upon the findings 17
and conditions contained within the draft record of land use action. 18
Commissioners, just a little bit of background before we get to an overview of the project by the 19
project Applicant and words from the Appellant. On April 25th the Director of Planning and 20
Community Environment tentatively approved the conditional use permit for an expansion of a 21
school function at an existing Church at 1095 Channing Avenue. This is a use permit that was 22
meant to take the place of previous use permits that have been granted on the site over the years. 23
A number of use permits have been granted. We have currently at least four use permits for the 24
site to allow the Church, the rectory, a residence, and other Church related uses. In 1987 there 25
was a use permit that tried to combine all of those use permits into one specific document and the 26
current request is for a further expansion of school uses upon the project site. And right now 27
those, the school programs represent a pre-kindergarten and a kindergarten program that are 28
currently taking place in modular buildings. The Church would like to construct permanent 29
facilities for the pre-kindergarten/kindergarten classes and that is essentially the request that is 30
before you today. 31
32
The existing use permit on the site does not cap the maximum number of students that could be 33
present on the facilities at any one time. That was a deficiency that Staff noted as we reviewed 34
this permit and therefore the proposed use permit has a cap of 315 students at any one time being 35
on the project site. The use permit also describes additional activities related to an afterschool 36
daycare program and combined with the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten programs would have 37
hours of operations from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 38
39
The project’s landscape plans show removal and replacement of trees on the site. Those have 40
been reviewed by the City Arborist and an additional landscape buffer has been indicated on the 41
plans to maintain a five foot minimum buffer between the Church and residential uses. Based 42
upon the materials contained within the project application, the review by City Staff, the Director 43
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 3 of 20
found that the proposed project would meet the findings for a conditional use permit. Those 1
findings are contained within your Staff Report and based upon that the Director made that 2
decision. 3
4
However, an interested member of the community requested a Public Hearing based upon that 5
decision and the process that we’re going through now for conditional use permits is that the use 6
permit is reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission. You’re to review that and 7
send your recommendation up to the City Council who will make a final decision. The person 8
requesting the hearing had a number of issues that are described within your Staff Report 9
including some mislabeling of specific uses on the plans, the requirement for a five foot 10
landscaped strip around the parking lot areas adjacent to residential uses, there was a question 11
about the number and amount of parking spaces on the existing site as compared to what was 12
proposed. So the person wanted to have some clarification about that, she also noted that the 13
plans did not contain information that would describe the level of landscaped screening between 14
the Church areas and the residential areas. And the final issue was with result, was with regards 15
to the automobile circulation plan for pick up and drop off of students on the site. And so in 16
response to those specific concerns the Project Architect addressed those and the response is also 17
contained in detail in your Staff Report to provide the landscape buffer, to describe the 18
screening, to describe the pedestrian drop off and circulation along the site as well as other 19
details that the Applicant can go into. 20
21
Based upon those responses from the Applicant, again the Staff reviewed the information and 22
found that we could still make the required findings for the conditional use permit and therefore 23
we are requesting that the Planning and Transportation Commission concur with that 24
recommendation and forward a recommendation to approval to the City Council. With me 25
tonight is Rina Shah from the Planning Division who is the Project Planner on the site. Also, 26
from the Applicant’s side we have John Miller, who is the Project Architect, and the Principal of 27
the school, Evelyn Rosa. And they will be making a presentation as well. That concludes the 28
Staff Report. Thank you. 29
30
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you Advance Planning Manager Turner. So I am going to open the 31
Public Hearing, we have the Staff recommendation and we actually opened the hearing and I 32
have the cards for the speakers? Do we have a speaker card for the Appellant? And if you wish 33
to speak and have not already submitted a speaker card, please do so. Do I have a card for the 34
Appellant? The Appellant. Excuse me. 35
36
Rina Shah, Planning Tech: Yeah, she’s here. Rita Vrhel. 37
38
Acting Chair Keller: Ok, great, thank you. Thank you. I wasn’t sure which one. Ok so this is 39
the Appellant. So, first by the Appellant a presentation by Rita Vrhel. I’m sorry if I’m 40
pronouncing your name incorrectly. And you will have up to 15 minutes. 41
42
Rita Vrhel, Appellant: I have some pictures for everybody. I have seven, I guess that will be 43
enough. Do you…do you want some? Ok, first of all I would like to start off by saying that I 44
live right next to the Church and to the school site. I would also like to say that I have no 45
objections to the school itself. The plans are fine, the drainage is fine, everything is fine. What I 46
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 4 of 20
have been objecting to and what I requested additional information on, and I was not provided 1
landscaping information, etcetera. I was provided the drawing which shows the traffic pattern 2
after I made my Appeal. 3
4
I just wanted to review a little bit about the school. My house was built in 1946; the school was 5
built in 1951. At some point, probably 15 years ago or so the local school population started to 6
decline and Elizabeth Seton was consolidated with Our Lady of the Rosary School, which was 7
over on Cowper Avenue. All the students were moved to Channing Avenue. It went from a K to 8
6 to a K to 8th grade. This is off the Elizabeth Seton School website. There were 251 students in 9
2002-2003, there were 248 students 2008-2009, there were 270 without preschool, currently. 10
There’s 300 with preschool, and the maximum number of students which is now being requested 11
is 315. The schools when they were consolidated, the Church had a mandate to serve 12
underprivileged children, minority students, Catholic students, and students that for the most part 13
do not live in the neighborhood. I only bring this up because it changes the tone of the school in 14
that most of these children, if not all, are driven to school. I have not seen any carpools; I have 15
seen very few children walking to school. I do see some children walking home from school, but 16
this is less than in the past. 17
18
I was involved in objecting to the cell tower that was proposed at the same property site. And so 19
one morning starting at 7:00 I was out handing out brochures in Spanish and English 20
encouraging the parents to become involved in the cell tower discussion. The traffic is quite 21
bunched up. If you look at the pictures I have provided to you, if we go to picture #2, this 22
shows, I’m sorry, if we go to picture #9. #9 and #10 show the school, the Church and the school, 23
and what happens is the traffic comes in, makes a right hand turn into the school property from 24
Channing and is directed in front of the what used to be the convent which is now called the 25
residence hall, over to the school which is this shown in #10, this 14 foot wide opening. This is 26
one way traffic. It’s also shown in photograph #11 and #12. And then the children are dropped 27
off in photograph #11 approximately where the cross is. And then the, the traffic continues 28
around the back side of the Church, over to the rectory, makes a left hand turn and goes out on 29
Channing. This is the way it has been done, I believe, for at least 10 years. This seems to have 30
solved the problem of getting the children into the school in an efficient fashion, minimizing 31
impact on the neighbors, minimizing two way traffic and the possibility of an accident, and, as 32
far as I know, there have not been any complaints about this pattern. I certainly have not 33
complained it at all. 34
35
With the stroke of a pen, the architect has now rerouted all the traffic for the entire 315 students, 36
which if we take 3 students a car, which I think is actually generous, there will be now 105 cars 37
going in this narrow space shown in photograph #1. I’m particularly concerned about this 38
because this is right next to my bedroom window. While I do have double paned windows and I 39
have put up a fence, and I have put up shrubbery, this space is 20 feet wide. Picture #2 shows 40
part of the property where the new school will be built. Picture #4 shows my car and the 41
neighbors, and another neighbor’s, kind of simulating going in and out in this very small space. 42
Many of the cars that I have observed going into the school are large SUV’s. Denali’s, 43
Suburban’s, Tacoma’s. They are not sedans. And you can see that there’s actually very little 44
space here. If you look at photograph #5, #6, #7, and #8, I’m showing you how much space 45
there actually is here. We’re talking about two to three feet on each side. I personally do not 46
feel that this is a very safe way to, with a stroke of a pen, reroute all the children coming into the 47
school. 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 5 of 20
Also, if you look at the map showing the property, I don’t know if you can put that one back up 1
there? You had it in beginning. There’s very few houses that are actually impacted by this. 2
There’s my house, there’s Doug and Claudia Beg, who have a three and a half year old and a one 3
year old. There’s the Caswell’s who are here tonight. There’s Trudy and her husband, I don’t 4
remember your name, I’m sorry. They’re here tonight. The large pie shaped house at 80 Kent, 5
they’re new owners, their last name is Bing. They are in China for a month and a friend of theirs 6
contacted me and they would be concerned about this. The people at 60 Kent are going to a 7
graduation. So you basically have at least 50% of the people impacted by this traffic change 8
here. 9
10
Additionally, if we look at, so what is happening is, so there will be at least 105 cars, more or 11
less, going by my bedroom window at 7:00 in the morning. They will circle around and, and 12
drop off and then they will come back down. Again, I think this is much too small of a space. 13
The other thing is that if you were to take a look at the site, and you can see that a little bit in the 14
photograph #3, this is the ivy that separates me from the Church. There is ivy, there is a chain 15
link fence, I have put up a bamboo fence, and there are some trees. It appears that the striping is 16
right up to the ivy. This is really not an effective noise barrier. It’s more actually of a nuisance 17
because for the last, I’ve been there since 1986, I have been trimming ivy on a regular basis. 18
19
If you look at picture #13, you will see two of the trash cans which are picked up at 6:15 in the 20
morning twice a week. The trashcans are rarely covered. We have an incredible rat population, 21
we also have a squirrel population, and all I’m asking is that when the when the Church, when 22
the school is approved, and I have no doubt that it be approved, that there be a provision so that 23
these garbage cans and recycle cans or whatever they are called have a lock on them so that we 24
don’t continue to have a rat problem, particularly given the amount of ivy. 25
26
Now, if you look at some of the plans, this plan, you can see, this is basically a chain link fence. 27
This is a chain link fence. This is a chain link fence. There used to be vegetation over here, but 28
a chain link fence really is not an adequate barrier from a school, a parking lot, and a Church. 29
We also have Church twice on Sunday and once on Saturday. So that basically means that with 30
this simple change of drop off plans the people involved will actually not be able to sleep in past 31
probably 7:00 six days a week. So all I’m asking is that the previous well-constructed, well 32
working, traffic flow pattern be reestablished and that the current suggested drop off pattern not 33
be adopted. I do not, again object to the school, I don’t object to the construction, I don’t object 34
to anything other than this change in the traffic flow pattern, which definitely will increase noise, 35
pollution, idling, irritation, and possibly decrease our property values. Thank you very much. 36
37
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. We now have the Applicants for 15 minutes. And who is 38
speaking first? 39
40
Father Matthew Stanley, Pastor of St. Thomas Aquinas Parish: Yes, my name is Father Matthew 41
Stanley; I’m the Pastor of St. Thomas Aquinas Parish, which includes the three campuses, St. 42
Albert the Great, Our Lady of the Rosary, and St. Thomas Aquinas. So I am the one responsible 43
for the facilities, the grounds, and all of the buildings on our three campuses. The school has 44
been mentioned has been around for a long time, has received tremendous amount of support 45
from not only the parish community of St. Thomas Aquinas but the community of Palo Alto for 46
many, many years. The most important thing that we look at, you know, each and every day is 47
being good neighbors. That’s really at the very top of our list. We want to be good neighbors 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 6 of 20
and we work extremely diligently to be good neighbors. So I would like to introduce the 1
Principal of St. Elizabeth Seton School. She can go into more details. Her name is Evelyn Rosa. 2
3
Evelyn Rosa, Principal of St. Elizabeth Seton School: Good evening. I inherited this project just 4
a year ago when I was hired to be the Principal of St. Elizabeth Seton and I just want to say just a 5
few things. First of all the project has been completely funded by donors and everyone is very 6
enthusiastic about this particular project. I work for the Daughters of Charity who really want 7
preschool programs for their schools as well as a full day kindergarten program. Our school is 8
one of only two schools in the Dioceses of San Jose that does not have a full day kindergarten 9
and I’m actually implementing the full day program this coming year. We’re not waiting for the 10
building to be built in order to do that. 11
12
Our desire for a preschool and a full day kindergarten will directly impact learning at Seton, 13
which most members of the community are very concerned about. Our children are bilingual. 14
Some of them come into the school with limited English proficiency and by having a preschool 15
program and a full day kindergarten it will significantly impact, you know, their ability to learn 16
to read at an earlier age. We want to be good neighbors and I haven’t received any complaints 17
this year from any individual regarding traffic. And that’s basically all that I can say at this 18
point. 19
20
John Miller, Project Architect: Good evening. I’m John Miller, I’m the Project Architect. First I 21
wanted to say it’s been a pleasure working with the Staff. I’ve spent many telephone 22
conversations with Rina and we’ve been, worked very closely and I think it’s been a good 23
relationship and helpful for us, the Applicant. I also want to say that I’ve been working on this 24
project since ’09. We looked at many different options to put these two classrooms on the site 25
and I will in a second explain how it functions. I also want to say that we have over the past 26
three years worked with not only the Planning Department. The Building Department has 27
reviewed it, the Fire Department has reviewed it, Public Works has reviewed it, Traffic has 28
reviewed it, and the Arborist has reviewed it. So, it’s been a process where we have taken each 29
issue that come up and work with it. We see this as an opportunity to take care of this issue. The 30
plans have been in since December, so we’re anxious to get this resolved and move on and build 31
our building. 32
33
I’d like to explain a little bit about the site. The Google map is up and I’ve got a little, not very 34
strong, but you could see the playground at the top of the picture and back. The white area is the 35
school. The area on the right with the red brick is the religious residence. It’s where the nuns 36
used to be. The red brick roof in the middle, down by the street on the lower part of the picture 37
is the Church and the red roof building on the far left is the rectory. Could we move this up a 38
little bit so that we could get the street in? There we go. Perfect. So, the new building will be 39
built if you look at the white roof, the far end there’s a small rectangle that’s smaller than the rest 40
of the building. That is a modular kindergarten that will be, that’s the half size right there, and it 41
will be demoed and it its place will be the new pre-kindergarten and the kindergarten. The 42
reason that this was important, this placement, is that from right to left along the length of the 43
school is the main corridor with classrooms on the right and the left. So this is the only 44
circulation spine really within the school and the kindergarten and the pre-kindergarten to be 45
integrated with the school needed to be along that circulation spine. 46
47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 7 of 20
In terms of, so that is why the building is there. We looked at many options. We looked at using 1
the religious residence; we looked at remodeling the religious residence. We looked at replacing 2
the religious residence, and about eight other different options. And so when we came to this 3
one we thought we had a really good solution that seemed to integrate well with the school. 4
5
In terms of traffic flow which is what we’re talking about tonight the, it’s a one way traffic flow 6
through the site and it enters, can you point where the entry is? Right there, the cars proceed 7
straight back and you can see that there’s a parking lot on the far right side. That will have 8
increased 4 spaces to 44 spaces. Currently that’s where the drop off is in the morning. We 9
understand that at one time it wasn’t there, it was more in front of the school, but that side 10
parking lot is always where the pickup has been. In terms of the way the children come and go, 11
there are some children that come before school starting at 7:00 a.m. There are, and then in the 12
afternoon, after school at 3:00 p.m. 80% of the kids stay on site for extended daycare. And 13
they’re picked up approximately one a minute. 14
15
I have a graph on my PowerPoint if we can get to that. It shows what we did in January is we 16
took a count; you need to go down about 4-5. Ok. That graph right there. A traffic survey was 17
taken for four days in January. Each bar represents a 15 minute increment, and the times that we 18
looked at it is a.m. peak and p.m. peak. So those, the small numbers at the bottom represent 15 19
minute intervals. As you can see, that between 7:00 and 7:15 a.m. if you look at the far left, 20
there’s approximately, was that nine cars? From 7:15 to 7:30, 15 cars arrive. 7:30 to 7:44, 25 21
cars. And then school’s starting at or about 8:00, 55 cars. And then of course there are 4 cars 22
afterward, the kids that are tardy. I shouldn’t have said that, but at any rate, so that’s the profile 23
of cars coming in the morning. 24
25
In the afternoon, as I said after school, which is roughly ends about 3:00, there’s 39 cars on 26
average come to pick up the kids at the end of school. Then throughout the afternoon in 15 27
minute increments, each bar you can see that it ranges anywhere from 17 to 8 cars in a 15 minute 28
increment. And then by 5:30 virtually everybody is gone, even though the extended daycare 29
stays open until 6:00, once in a while there’s an emergency, but for all practical purposes 30
everybody’s gone at 5:15. 31
32
So I’ve talked about traffic flow. Do you wanna… I’d like to briefly show you a closer view of 33
the floor plan which is this, right here. It’s oriented so that the Google picture had the school 34
right and left, the corridor. This has the picture oriented where the circulation path is up and 35
down with the parking lot to the left. As you can see this is a very important entry to the school. 36
It is an entry that is where they can control the flow of students in and out, and especially in the 37
afternoon it, the parking lot is where parents stop and they have to sign out their children. And 38
then that’s why over, it’s one a minute or so, there’s no big rush in the afternoon. 39
40
Could we go to the site plan? The other important thing is that the new buildings are in purple at 41
the top of the image. The school is primarily to the left of the purple area and the parking lot is 42
to the right of the purple area. I might add that the driveway is, meets regulations for fire safety. 43
The Fire Department felt that it was wide enough for their emergency use, but the critical point I 44
want to get to is that for pre-k kids they often have to be escorted in to the classroom by their 45
parents. And so, with the pre-k being the upper purple square in this drawing, you can see that 46
that side parking lot is really the only place that’s convenient for multiple parents to be able to 47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 8 of 20
stop, take their children out and introduce them to the classroom. That is one of the strong 1
reasons why in some way or form that drop off and pickup needs to be maintained. 2
3
I’m not sure how much more time I have, I’ve covered most of the salient points. 4
5
Acting Chair Keller: You have about three minutes. 6
7
Mr. Miller: Ok. I don’t have much more to say except that we worked very hard with everybody 8
involved. We look forward to resolving any outstanding issues and the drawings are out to bid 9
right now for construction. So, we are, you know, ready to go and anxious and would like to 10
have this stop or interruption end so we can proceed with our project. That’s it. 11
12
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. We’ll now have members of the public who wish to speak. 13
The first speaker is Trudy Eichstadt and will have three minutes. We have four speakers. 14
15
Ms. Trudy Eichstadt: Good evening, I’m Trudy Eichstadt and I live at 41 Kent. And we have 16
been living there since 1968, and I have been watching first the children would play right next to 17
our bedroom and on the car, on the parking lot, so we would hear children’s noise and that would 18
wake us sometimes. And we got very used to that and was fun, but time passed and we noticed 19
now more children, and more, and cars would come in and park, and that gradually has been 20
increasing. And we have now noticed, we have now our children living with us because they are 21
remodeling their house so they have been complaining to us two things, the increase of traffic 22
when the children are being dropped off and collected, and also the garbage collection trucks 23
because the garbage bins are right at our fence on the one side. 24
25
And so, my concern is that with the increase of numbers of children, there also will be more 26
traffic, and so if it’s possible to have maybe an abatement of the noise, a wall erected or more 27
landscaping because all the trees that were right at our fence have been removed. So we only are 28
separated by an ivy and chain link fence and from our side, the fence that we erected. So, so this 29
is the one issue that concerns me. 30
31
And also the second issue that is very annoying is the garbage bins that are left uncovered and 32
we have eight oak trees right on our property on the school property and our side, and we have so 33
many squirrels now and rats that it’s just a nonsense. I have to cover every plant in the garden if 34
I want to harvest the fruit or I want to harvest some vegetables, it’s just incredible. So if it is a 35
possibility to close those garbage bins or, you know, do something about that. And also we clean 36
the two lots; adjacent two lots are part of the parking area. And I clean, we clean our cul-de-sac, 37
the two lots, we remove candy wrappers constantly, things that the rats or the squirrels bring out 38
of the garbage bins they deposit on our lot or on the… And so, we have been doing that for 39
years and so I hope that the school will also be a little more aware of the amount of garbage that 40
is being left on the grounds and being taken by (interrupted—the buzzer went off). Thank you 41
very much. 42
43
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. Our next speaker is, our next speaker is Lee Caswell and 44
following that is Klaus Eichstadt. 45
46
Mr. Lee Caswell: Ok, thank you. My name is Lee Caswell and I live at 1139 Channing Avenue. 47
And so it is a pleasure to meet the people from the Church. I don’t have any issue with the 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 9 of 20
Church, but as good neighbors I do have to say that that hasn’t been our experience and the fact 1
that I’m meeting them for the first time tonight with such a major project is indicative of that. I 2
do know the Facilities Manager at the Church, Chuck, on a first name basis because of a 3
repeating, repetitive set of issues where the Church made changes without thinking about 4
neighbor impact. So, I’ll put the AT&T tower first off, but second we’ve had a consistent issue 5
with putting very large luminescent lights that point into our house. And the Church has been 6
responsive and I do appreciate that, of changing and making changes to the lights, but I think 7
consistently making those changes without thinking about the impact. 8
9
This is a major impact. The number of cars coming into the street, right? I mean we’ve, we 10
have known about the Church and don’t have any issues and are actually pleased to see the 11
impact that the Church has on this level of the students, but the promise of having hundreds of 12
cars go right by our property line on a consistent basis I have no confidence that that’s gonna be 13
one minute drop off and pick up time. I don’t believe it. When you look at the tight 14
configuration of having cars come in and go out and seeing both the size of the cars and the fact 15
that there are a lot of kids involved. I believe that this is actually a more complicated pattern that 16
we haven’t looked at any of the implications on the street itself or on the ability for people to 17
navigate that a, that piece. And so I think we’re gonna have actually a large, a lot of cars 18
actually bunched up instead. 19
20
My requests are actually pretty simple. I think in any event the barriers between the Church and 21
our property line and Rita’s property line and the other neighbors here; we should take a really 22
hard look at noise abatement, making sure that that happens regardless of the traffic, the traffic 23
pattern. I also believe this traffic pattern, and I’m requesting specifically, that this be relooked at 24
and removed. Thanks. 25
26
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. The next speaker is Klaus Eichstadt followed by Melissa Baten 27
Caswell. 28
29
Klaus Eichstadt: I make it very short because my wife already talked about most of the subjects I 30
would have talked, but one thing I’m an engineer and I wish every one of the cars was an electric 31
car obviously. [That what] a solution, but let’s face it, I mean this is a unique situation with this 32
school because most of the children are not from the, off the streets in the vicinity. They come 33
all from most, they cannot walk. And that I think is the biggest problem. 34
35
I don’t understand why not more is being done studying the way to have at least a very organized 36
carpool working, and even better if they couldn’t, couldn’t afford to have a bus coming from an 37
area where most kids come, could come. It would be cheaper for the parents, they don’t have to 38
drive so long distances to let the kids off, and I think the expenses for a smaller bus would be 39
well, well played, well done for the whole community. I mean I can’t understand. We have 40
sometimes bus running here in the City there are only two, three people on it. They are gas 41
powered and they are not being used well. Why not having a smaller bus, which has gas power 42
and could drop off probably more than 50% of the children, I’d bet could be dropped off on 43
Channing. I don’t understand why this is not in the future. 44
45
We are now trying to bring down traffic, trying to bring down consumption of gasoline, taking 46
advantage of the new technologies like electricity and gas, why is this not being attacked in a 47
more aggressive way? From the City itself? The City’s strong enough, and it’s a rich city. 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 10 of 20
There are a lot of engineers and people who can come up with plans which I think would work 1
and would bring down the traffic and the pollution and would make all the children happier. So 2
thank you. 3
4
Acting Chair Keller: Thank you and our final speaker is Melissa Baten Caswell. 5
6
Melissa Baten Caswell: Hi, I’m Melissa Baten Caswell, 1139 Channing Avenue. Thank you 7
Commissioners for allowing us to speak about this issue. My husband and I moved into the 8
house, the third house from the Church that directly boarders the parking lot 21 years ago. When 9
we moved into that house there were trees behind our house that were on the Church property 10
bordering the parking lot and our home. So there was a barrier at that time. Since that time, 11
there was also some more shrubbery than there is now. When I say shrubbery I don’t mean ivy. 12
The shrubbery today is mostly ivy, but there were actually shrubs there. Over time those trees 13
have been taken out for various reasons, but nothing’s been replaced. 14
15
The number of students of the school has increased, which we don’t mind. I grew up next to, 16
living next to a Church, and there’s something very lovely about hearing kids in the morning. 17
I’m on the School Board in Palo Alto as you know, and we serve over 12,000 students, over 600 18
of which come from East Palo Alto to our District, so I’m definitely a proponent of making sure 19
that we have good educational opportunities for as many students as possible. 20
21
But I am concerned about this traffic pattern. I’m concerned that there are cars idling in a circle 22
in a very tight space there. I’m concerned that there are going to be younger kids walking 23
around. Yes, parents hopefully will be walking kids in if it’s dangerous, but think about what 24
that looks like right now. You’re gonna have a parking area where people will come in and park. 25
You also, at the exact same time have cars, most of which are big cars for whatever reason, 26
coming and circling around the parking area as people are walking in with their children. 27
There’ll be cars idling. I mean this just doesn’t sound like a very safe situation for the kids. Plus 28
the idling cars put off quite a bit of pollution that’s going right into our backyards now because 29
there is no barrier except for this chain link fence. 30
31
So, I urge the Commissioners to push back on this traffic pattern. I think we need something 32
that’s more safe, and more neighbor friendly. And we definitely need either new shrubbery put 33
in place and new trees so there is a real barrier there, or some sort of sound wall. I just don’t 34
think we can be good neighbors the way it is right now. 35
36
I also want to say that 21 years ago when we moved in, we did meet the pastor of the Church and 37
he was very, he was a good neighbor, he did talk to us. But this is the first time my husband and 38
I have seen the Pastor, the Principal of the school. So, I’m just, I’d like to have a better 39
relationship. 40
41
Acting Chair Keller: May I ask you a question? Yes, thank you. I haven’t heard from any of the 42
neighbors or from the Appellant how the traffic was different before in terms of what differences 43
between how the current traffic is versus the proposed traffic pattern. 44
45
Melissa Baten Caswell: So I have not gone and studied the traffic, but I have seen this plan and 46
I’m concerned that this is a dangerous way to set it up. The traffic going down Channing at, 47
between 7:30 and 8:00 has become a backup every morning. It’s very hard for us to get out of 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 11 of 20
our driveways. I’m willing to put up with that cause that doesn’t seem unsafe, that seems like a 1
pain but not unsafe. This seems unsafe to me and I encourage the Commissioners to come over 2
and walk that parking lot, because I think you get a different sense in it than you do from the 3
pictures. 4
5
Acting Chair Keller: We have a three minute wrap up from the Applicant. 6
7
Mr. Miller: Thank you for your time tonight, thank you for your comments, I’ve written them 8
down. We look forward to working with these people and discussing their issues. I could give 9
you a half an hour on sound walls, but I think that’s maybe another time. But I did want to say is 10
that a couple things that I’ve heard now; I’d give you some background. The chain link fence, 11
it’s a commercial grade chain link fence. If we could go to my pictures, two down, and go two 12
more. You can see the post in the end. Go back one. This is the, basically the driveway on the 13
right and that fence of the neighbors on the left, as you can see it’s very dense. We looked at 14
replanting it, but taking plants out would make it less dense than what it is now. The chain link 15
fence is very important for children’s safety. As you can see on the right there’s a fence like that 16
around, a wood fence around the school a child could slip out very easily. The chain link fence 17
is very important for security. 18
19
And traffic patterns, as I said earlier the afternoon traffic patterns have always been the same. 20
That at one time, for many years, there was a drop off in front of the school. There are some 21
good parts about that. There are some minuses about that in particular parking, if you have to 22
take your child in. 23
24
The garbage, this is, they’re willing to work with that. I listened to the Principal, they’re 25
interested in making sure that it’s, it’s up to a standard. And if it takes more pickups or more 26
containers, that’s fine. And I think, I think that’s it. I don’t want to talk too much more, I’m 27
looking through my notes here. That’s all I have to say at this time. Any questions? 28
29
Acting Chair Keller: Questions? Commissioner Tuma. 30
31
Commissioner Tuma: Yes. I actually would like to know the answer to the question that was 32
asked before, which is what is the current traffic circulation pattern within the facility? 33
34
Mr. Miller: The current traffic circulation pattern is the pattern that I, I presented earlier. They 35
come in the parking, the street curb cut at the far, the bottom right. They go straight back and 36
then they circulate around, clockwise, counter clockwise to the drop off, as you can see where 37
the arrow is, and then the kids are, there’s an attendant out there who makes sure that things go 38
smoothly. And then the cars go back down the driveway, make a hard right and then go along 39
the front of the school, between the school and the Church, around the rectory and out. It’s been 40
reviewed by the traffic engineer and I think one of the virtues of this is that it has a long queue 41
available to it, the long (interrupted) 42
43
Commissioner Tuma: So is that the pattern that’s in practice today? 44
45
Mr. Miller: That has been in practice for the last couple years. Morning and afternoon. 46
47
Commissioner Tuma: And what, and how is what you’re proposing different? 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 12 of 20
Mr. Miller: It’s not. I think what may be, for many years the drop off was in the front of the 1
Church, or front of the school where the pointer is right now. And we’re willing to, you know, 2
to talk about that, but we also have to realize or everybody has to realize that getting those the 3
pre-k kids from the parking where the cars are directly to the pre-k is important. 4
5
Commissioner Tuma: Would it be feasible to have a split drop off location? 6
7
Mr. Miller: Yes. 8
9
Commissioner Tuma: Where you possibly could have the pre-k dropped off, because I 10
understand the proximity, especially with the little ones, but if you could somehow have, and you 11
know I’m not a traffic engineer, but would it possible to have two different locations, two 12
different patterns and not having them conflicting? 13
14
Mr. Miller: I’ve talked to the Principal as she said, she’s been here one year so she has instituted 15
a few things, more things are being instituted next year in terms of traffic control. And we would 16
like to sit down and discuss those, that concept. 17
18
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. And one other question I think it was mentioned earlier but I didn’t 19
quite, what is, by adding this facility, how many additional students are we talking about? 20
21
Mr. Miller: We are, as the conditions say, we are not increasing the maximum number because 22
the maximum number by the Catholic Church has always been considered 315. So, we would be 23
reducing students in the other classes to make sure that we would never go over 315. 24
25
Commissioner Tuma: Ok, so if I understand it you’re not proposing an increase in the number of 26
students that are permitted under the permit, and you’re not proposing a change to the current 27
traffic pattern. Is that right? 28
29
Mr. Miller: I think, I think as Staff said there, it wasn’t really spelled out in the previous 30
conditions of approval, the number of students, so this is the time to quantify that and in terms of 31
traffic patterns, no. I mean, these kids come many times; their parents are coming from work or 32
going to work in the morning. And so, you know, they have restricted flexibility in terms of how 33
they can get their kids to and from school. I think we’ve all had, you know, have had kids have 34
realized that it becomes very hectic. 35
36
Mr. Turner: Acting Chair Keller? 37
38
Acting Chair Keller: May I, Mr. Miller, one moment. I believe that Mr. Turner wishes to talk. 39
40
Mr. Turner: Yes Acting Chair Keller, it might be helpful for Mr. Miller to describe perhaps the 41
current approximate number of students that are served by the school as compared to the 42
proposed number of students that would result with this project. We understand I think the 43
maximum number of students would not exceed 315 students, but if you could just describe the 44
actual counts before and after. 45
46
Mr. Miller: The, the actual count now for K through 8th grade is 270. 265, on a good day. 47
48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 13 of 20
Mr. Turner: And the proposed number of students as a result of this project? 1
2
Mr. Miller: We wouldn’t, as I said we wouldn’t increase it. There is room in the building and the 3
room that we’ve designed for 30. So they would expect to have, you know, fill that to capacity, 4
that 30. And so there may be an increase because of that, but as I said, no more than 315. 5
6
Commissioner Tuma: Ok, and then one last question for you which is in terms of the location 7
where the trash bin is currently, is there, is there a different location on the property that could 8
have, and I don’t want to move it all the way over to the other side because then you got 9
neighbors on the other side. But is there another location somewhere that could, could be used in 10
order to minimize the impact on the neighborhood on either side? 11
12
Mr. Miller: We were requested to build a roofed trash area. Right now it’s more of what we 13
could say is a casual area of where the cans are. I’ve talked to the Principal. They’re willing to 14
have more pickups. If we could schedule the pickups at certain times, if the, if the refuge 15
company can do that we would certainly entertain that. But in terms of finding another place, 16
this is a very tight site and we have studied the turning radiuses of the garbage trucks and they 17
are accommodated in that side parking lot. If they go towards, through the, between the Church 18
and the religious residence there, that gets down to I think it’s about 14 feet. So it gets very 19
narrow where those two buildings are. And as you can see, there’s not much maneuvering space 20
on the left side. So, the bottom line is, is that this, while it’s close to some neighbors, it’s not 21
directly behind the neighbors and between the trash enclosure there’s the 30 feet of landscaping 22
to the cul-de-sac behind. So their property goes all the way to the cul-de-sac behind. 23
24
Commissioner Tuma: Thank you. 25
26
Acting Chair Keller: Acting Vice Chair Tanaka. 27
28
Acting Vice Chair Tanaka: Actually my question was the same that Commissioner Tuma asked, 29
so thank you. 30
31
Mr. Miller: Ok. 32
33
Acting Chair Keller: Commissioner Michael. 34
35
Commissioner Michael: So I’d like to thank everybody both on behalf of the Applicant and the 36
neighbors who came in this evening to, to raise issues and give us information. I had to check 37
with the, with the Office of the Planning Commission to see if I had a conflict of (interrupted) 38
39
Acting Chair Keller: Just indicating that we’re talking about, these are questions for the, for the 40
architect, we’re not doing general comments. 41
42
Commissioner Michael: Ok, so questions for the architect have largely been asked by others. 43
Maybe you could address the sound wall issue, which I think you alluded you had some 44
information. The chain link fence with ivy seems to me to be a good solution for keeping kids 45
enclosed but a bad solution for noise. 46
47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 14 of 20
Mr. Miller: Right. Well, landscaping is not a good acoustic barrier. An acoustician would say 1
the more weight the better. So you could go up to a more substantial wood wall with sound 2
deadening inside of it and then from there you go to, you know, big concrete barriers. 3
4
Commissioner Michael: What I didn’t get was whether there were any actual discussions with 5
the neighbors about alternatives to mitigate their concerns. 6
7
Mr. Miller: We didn’t hear any of these comments until the appeal period. 8
9
Commissioner Michael: But there was no outreach to the neighbors to seek out their comments? 10
11
Mr. Miller: We, the sign was out there. We, did we do any? I think, well the sign was out there. 12
Did we send out any fliers or not? We’ve had some coffees monthly. Maybe the outreach could 13
have been, could have been better, but, you know, the sign was out there starting in the first week 14
in December saying that, you know, we had plans and that we were considering a building 15
project. I’m talking about the white sign that you put out in front with the notice, public notice 16
on it. 17
18
Commissioner Michael: But there was no human contact? So the split drop off option, I guess 19
has been raised. What would be the, the traffic impact if you allowed the people who had the 20
pre-kindergarten drop off to go back but people dropping off older students to go in the current, 21
go left rather than back? 22
23
Mr. Miller: I think that’s a possibility. I’ve talked to the Principal and while we don’t know all 24
the logistics of it, you understand that kids come to school 180 times a year so that people get 25
into a pattern. And there will be a teacher out there, and student aides to help with the traffic 26
next year, which doesn’t happen now. So we could work with the parents on training them to go 27
to certain different, you know, to two different places depending upon the age of their child. 28
29
Commissioner Michael: If there were a split drop off, what’s the approximate head count that 30
would go back versus dropped off in the front? 31
32
Mr. Miller: Well, that’s, that takes some thought because the pre-k kids, they’re expecting half of 33
them to be siblings of children that are already in school. So, and I think we’d have to do some 34
analysis, but we would need at least capacity for 30 kids to go to the back. What that represents 35
in cars I’m not sure, and then the rest would have to go to the front. And we’d have to study, 36
because now we’ve got two drop off areas and only one exit. So after you drop off you’d have to 37
go through the second drop off area in front. For instance if you came with your pre-k child, 38
took them to their room and use the side parking lot, then you come out towards the front and go 39
past the front of the school which is where the second drop off we’re talking about. And so you 40
have a pinch point there. We don’t have really good chance to get two lanes of cars very well 41
one past the other. I’m willing to look at it. 42
43
Commissioner Michael: Although with the pinch point it seems you also would reduce the total 44
distance traveled by vehicles on the site by having them divert instead of going back. 45
46
Mr. Miller: That’s, yeah that’s true. 47
48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 15 of 20
Commissioner Michael: So less pollution, less noise. 1
2
Mr. Miller: That’s true. That’s true. The other thing we’d have to do is that the parking spaces 3
now to the left of the entrance of the school, it’s represented where there’s a line of trees, so 4
they’re green circles. Right now those are striped for handicapped parking for the Church. So, 5
any piece of real estate here is used for multiple different functions depending upon the day. So 6
on Sunday’s that’s all handicapped parking so we would have to do some signage or somehow 7
work with the traffic engineer to have, we’d have to have at least some parking spaces in front of 8
the school, in front of the school. But, yeah, I think it could be worked out. 9
10
Commissioner Michael: Ok, thank you. 11
12
Acting Chair Keller: So, a couple of comments weren’t, a couple of questions weren’t, weren’t 13
addressed in terms of the split drop off, obviously anybody who wants to park could go to the 14
right along with the kindergarten and pre-k students, and anybody who wished not to park could 15
go to the left. So, you wouldn’t have to have additional parking spaces for the school in front of 16
the Church if you did it that way. 17
18
Mr. Miller: That’s a very good point. 19
20
Acting Chair Keller: The second thing is that I would suspect that older students would exit from 21
their cars more quickly than younger students would. And therefore the traffic for dropping off 22
older students would flow faster than the pinch point of people going around and dropping off in 23
the rear. 24
25
Mr. Miller: All I can say, all I can say is that to that point, it was in the front and it’s been moved 26
to the side and in terms of logistics for the school it’s worked very well because you have one 27
point of entry. You know, one important thing about schools is creating a secure perimeter and 28
the more points you have coming in and out the more chance you have of people you don’t 29
know. So, when you have two points of entry we have to have twice the staff, and be, you know, 30
vigilant for that. Right now the point that I haven’t said is that right now the front doors are 31
locked pretty much all the time. So everybody comes to the side. 32
33
Acting Chair Keller: Ok, thank you and two other quick comment questions. One is about the 34
trash enclosure. So you said that right now there’s a requirement that it be covered. Is, is that it 35
be in an enclosure as opposed to open? I assume that that’s the, is that correct? 36
37
Mr. Miller: We have a roof. That’s, and a new concrete pad. 38
39
Acting Chair Keller: Great, and is there enough trash capacity, and based on the trash pickups so 40
that all the trash can be placed inside the containers so that the containers can remain closed and 41
that there’s no overflow or trash on the, elsewhere? 42
43
Mr. Miller: I, when that came up I talked to the Principal and she assured me that some 44
accommodations can be made whether it’s more trash bins or more pickups. In fact last week 45
she had, at the end of school, an additional refuse pick up just because at the end of school you 46
have a greater amount. So, she’s, there’s a couple tools that we can use to work on that. 47
48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 16 of 20
Acting Chair Keller: And I assume that we’re talking about the City bins that have a pretty hard, 1
pretty heavy cover so if they, we make sure that they stay, that they’re closed and when other 2
than when something is being placed in them that, that should work. 3
4
Mr. Miller: Yes. 5
6
Acting Chair Keller: Ok and the other issue that was brought up was about carpooling. Are, is 7
there a potential for carpooling? That is greater than what is achieved now? Is there a 8
carpooling program of any sort? 9
10
Mr. Miller: They can certainly ask about it but, as I mentioned earlier, most of the parents are 11
working parents. And in the morning they are either on their way to work, or in the afternoon 12
they are coming home from work. So it’s really, it’s not like the old days, you know, with the 13
yellow school bus, which I grew up with. It’s, parents are going in many different directions. So 14
carpooling would be a difficult task at this, because of that. 15
16
Acting Chair Keller: Alright, thank you. We now have three minutes from the Appellant, and 17
that again is Rita Vrhel, and you can respond to any of the comments that you’ve heard in your 18
three minutes. And there may be questions afterward. 19
20
Ms. Vrhel: Thank you, I was raising my hand. I didn’t realize the process. Ok, so you asked a 21
question about increasing students. If you’re going from 315 to 265 students, which is the 22
current level of students, you are increasing by 50 students. And I think probably given enough 23
time I could do the math, but that is an increase. So you’re increasing noise, you’re increasing 24
cars, you’re increasing everything. So, yes, the number of students will go from 315 from the 25
current 265. 26
27
The other thing is, you know, I’ve lived in my house since 1986 and the Principal is new, the old 28
one got kicked out after the cell tower fiasco. The Pastor and I have worked together. I don’t 29
know where this traffic pattern is coming up because there’s two things going on. One, the 30
traffic pattern previously was coming in right hand turn on Channing, going between the, yeah, 31
ok, so make a, yeah, however, yeah, that’s it. You go that way, make a left hand turn, yes, you 32
go past there you drop off the kids where the cross is, you go through the 14 foot wide thing, you 33
go around, make a, make a right hand turn, right hand turn, I’m sorry, left hand turn. Left hand 34
turn, you come down to Channing, you’re done. Ok. If you, you know, again I really urge you 35
to come over and actually look at this property because the chain link fence and the ivy is like 36
this. I can see my, my fence. The dried up ivy gets, gets caught up and there’s rats in there and 37
it’s really terrible so… they, that traffic pattern works for Sunday, it works for Saturday Church, 38
it has worked up until this last year. 39
40
Now maybe in the last year there have been changes made to the traffic pattern and that’s what 41
the other neighbors are complaining about, but, you know, would you want to live there if you 42
had 276 cars coming behind your house five days a week in the morning and the evening? Is this 43
what a residential property is about? I don’t think you’d want it for your kids. I don’t think 44
you’d want it for yourself. So let’s work together and solve this problem in an intelligent fashion 45
rather than saying that this is the way it is and we’re gonna have monitors out there, and this is 46
the only way it can be. You can unlock that door, you can have the kids come in here. If they’re 47
gonna have older siblings with the younger kids, the younger kids can take them in. You know, 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 17 of 20
younger kids only have to be taken into school the first week and then they see their, their friends 1
and they’re happy to go into. I don’t think we should redo the entire traffic pattern for three, for 2
thirty children. I mean this is just totally upsetting. Thank you very much. 3
4
Acting Chair Keller: I think there’re questions for you. Acting Vice Chair Tanaka. 5
6
Ms. Vrhel: Yes. 7
8
Acting Vice Chair Tanaka: So, can you tell me in your opinion when did the traffic change from 9
going the way you described it to the traffic pattern that’s described in our plans today? 10
11
Ms. Vrhel: You know, I don’t really know because, like I said I’ve been there since 1986 and the 12
traffic pattern has always been to go through the, the middle of the Church and minimize the 13
traffic on the neighbors. Again we have a new Principal who I have not met. So I, I’m not really 14
sure. I mean when I was talking to my neighbors today they were saying in the past year that 15
they have noticed an increase in idling, noise, traffic in the back. So maybe there was a change 16
at some point which I did not notice. Again, I do have double pane windows, but I do know that 17
after school and on Saturday and Sunday there is considerable noise as people, you know, have 18
conversations and I don’t have anything against that, I just realize that if we don’t protest at this 19
point this will become the way it will be for the rest of the time that we live there. 20
21
I would also like to point out that the, the architect said that they had looked at taking the 22
kindergarten, I mean the convent. The convent is a convent. When they kicked the nuns out 23
they tried to put a kindergarten in there and it’s against the zoning law. So to look at that again, 24
it’s against the zoning law. I mean, that’s absolutely false. And I don’t really know who’s living 25
there now. I don’t think its ministers and religious people, but I’ve never made a point of it 26
because there’s no noise. I’m only making a point now because I feel like this is very valid. 27
28
Acting Vice Chair Tanaka: Ok, so just to make sure I understood this, so, it very well, very well 29
may be that the traffic pattern is as drawn in the plans today, it’s just you weren’t aware until you 30
saw the plans. 31
32
Ms. Vrhel: You know, I do not, yes, you’re right. I do not, I went down and got the plans in 33
November. The, the change in traffic pattern was mentioned in the verbiage, but I did not see 34
this attached to the plans that, that I have here that I printed off. And I filed, I filed an Appeal in 35
April because I was told that there was a convention, a conditional Appeal. And I’m not sure 36
what happened between November and April, so I would’ve appealed this earlier if I had known 37
that there was a conditional granting of the approval. 38
39
Acting Vice Chair Tanaka: Ok, and the other question is in terms of the outreach. I think the 40
school said they did some coffee, monthly coffees? 41
42
Ms. Vrhel: Nothing. Nothing. I live right next to the Church. There has been no outreach, there 43
has been no coffee, there has been no flyers, there has been nothing. 44
45
Acting Vice Chair Tanaka: Ok, thank you. 46
47
Ms. Vrhel: Ok. 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 18 of 20
Acting Chair Keller: Ok, at this point we will close the Public Hearing and then we’ll have a 1
discussion, motions, and recommendations. Commissioner Tuma. 2
3
MOTION 4
5
Commissioner Tuma: Yeah, I’d like to make a Motion that we, Planning and Transportation 6
Commission, continue this matter to a date uncertain, during which we would allow adequate 7
time for the Applicant to work with the neighborhood to have discussions regarding the proposed 8
traffic pattern, the situation with the garbage, and the situation with noise. 9
10
SECOND 11
12
Acting Chair Keller: Motion by Commissioner Tuma, seconded by Commissioner Michael. Do 13
you wish to speak to your Motion? 14
15
Commissioner Tuma: I do. So what I’m hearing tonight is actually not a huge amount of 16
disagreement. I think that the, there hasn’t been an adequate, in my observation, an adequate 17
opportunity for the neighbors to sit down with staff from the Church and have an open 18
discussion. What I’ve heard tonight is some issues raised by the neighborhood, most of which it 19
sounds to me as if the Church is amenable to. And so, the difficult issues here around traffic 20
patterns, garbage, and noise are all things that I think with an adequate opportunity for folks to 21
sit down and talk about it could result in, in a good result. Probably a better result than we could 22
sort of dictate from up here. You all have to live with it. You all have to, you understand the 23
situation better. We could come up with all sorts of ideas, but that’s really not gonna be the best 24
result. The best result is for you all to sit down and chat about it. 25
26
It would, some words of caution from my perspective on both sides about those discussions. 27
One is that from the perspective of the Church, putting out a sign and saying anyone can come 28
by and talk about things is not the same as going door to door, reaching out to people, holding, 29
making sure that people come. And so, I don’t know what efforts were undertaken or weren’t 30
undertaken, but you certainly have the attention of the neighborhood now. I’m sure that if you 31
all could exchange phone numbers or what have you, you would come up with a way to get 32
together. 33
34
From the perspective of the neighborhood, this group is permitted up to 315 students now. They 35
are permitted to have the traffic pattern that they are requesting and so I would just say let’s try 36
to work something out that’s mutually agreeable and not try to take an opportunity to change 37
things around entirely. They do have certain vested rights, and the changes that they are asking 38
for here don’t dramatically impact those vested rights. So the, my word of, of caution in the 39
negotiations would be sort of to talk about how we can address the core issues here, let’s don’t 40
get into redesigning their whole site, having them do things that are difficult. 41
42
So, it doesn’t sound to me that you guys are that far apart, I think if you all work together and 43
have some discussions and Staff could or could not be involved in those depending on where 44
Staff wants to go with that, I wouldn’t make that a part of the Motion, but I suspect that in 45
relatively short order you will come back together and certainly if not resolved all the issues, 46
have them narrowed down to the point where we could, taking into account policy, could come 47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 19 of 20
up with a way to resolve what’s ever left. But it sounds to me as if a lot of these things can be 1
resolved by simply taking time and I’d rather that you all came up with the solution then us. 2
3
Acting Chair Keller: Commissioner Michael. 4
5
Commissioner Michael: So I’d be hard pressed to improve upon Commissioner Tuma’s 6
comments, which I entirely second and support. I was gonna say earlier that I was very close to 7
being affected by conflict of interest on this matter because my house on Parkinson is very close 8
to the 500 foot radius that would exclude me and I grew up in a house that would be within a 500 9
foot radius on Kirby Place. And from my childhood I’m very familiar with the property and it’s 10
sort of interesting to have it come back tonight with this issue. 11
12
But I would say that as a Planning Commissioner one of the things that has been brought to my 13
attention that there are a lot of concerns about whether or not the Palo Alto process works. And I 14
don’t think this is really a question of the Palo Alto process. I think this really is a question of, 15
of actual, practical, direct communication between people whose interests are affected who 16
appear to be perfectly intelligent and willing to cooperate and come about with something that 17
would be entirely within whatever is permitted by the land use and zoning requirements. There 18
seems to be support for the school, seems to be support for the architectural work, but it’s sort of 19
appalling that the issues that we heard tonight weren’t, that actually had to come before us this 20
evening. And I would really exert anybody who’s in a position of leadership to do a better job of 21
leading and you have the full attention of the neighborhood and I’m close to being one of your 22
neighbors and I encourage you to, to work it out and I think you’ll arrive at the best solution. 23
24
Acting Chair Keller: Acting Vice Chair Tanaka, do you want to say anything? 25
26
Acting Vice Chair Tanaka: No, I think the comments made kind of reflect my opinion as well. I 27
think this is probably best, the majority of it try to solve I think in formal meetings, maybe or the 28
monthly coffees and, and may not even need to come back to us after those meetings. So thank 29
you. 30
31
VOTE 32
33
Acting Chair Keller: I have only one thing to add and that is it might be helpful for Staff to 34
understand in the noticing that we give about a project to the extent that we invite the members 35
of the public to talk to Staff about any concerns they have before it gets the stage that there’s an 36
issuance of a, of a conditional use permit and appeal. And in particular they only had the 37
opportunity to appeal because there was an issuance of a continuous, of a conditional use permit. 38
But on the other hand, for any other application are there opportunities when people find out 39
about application to weigh in and make their comments and have them considered by Staff. So 40
some understanding of the mechanism by which members of the public can talk to Staff during 41
the consideration of an application would be helpful so that we could resolve this in a, in general 42
in a process that works for everybody. Thank you. 43
44
Seeing no further lights, call for the vote. All in favor, say aye. (ayes) All opposed? So the 45
Motion carries unanimously with Commissioner Tuma, Acting Vice Chair Tanaka, Acting Chair 46
Keller, and Commissioner Michael all voting in the affirmative. 47
48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 20 of 20
1
MOTION PASSED (4-0-0, Chair Martinez and Vice Chair Fineberg absent) 2
FERRARI:128401.1 1
PERSONAL LICENSE AGREEMENT
This Personal License Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into
effective as of December ___, 2012, which is the date that this Agreement has been fully
executed by all of those persons required to sign it (the “Effective Date”),by and between
The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, a California corporation sole (“Licensor”), and
Rita C. Vrhel (“Licensee”). Licensor and Licensee are collectively referred to herein as
the “parties,” and each of them is individually referred to herein as a “party.”
RECITALS:
A.Licensor is the owner of that certain real property located in Palo Alto,
Santa Clara County, California, commonly known as 1093-1095 Channing Avenue, Palo
Alto, California 94301 (“Licensor’s Property”).
B.Licensee owns and resides at that certain real property located in Palo
Alto, Santa Clara County, California, commonly known as 1125 Channing Avenue, Palo
Alto, California 94301 (“Licensee’s Property”).
C.Licensee’s Property shares a boundary with Licensor’s Property that is
approximately one hundred five feet (105’) long, running on a straight line perpendicular
to Channing Avenue, as established by several parcel maps and surveys (the “Shared
Boundary”).
D.The parties acknowledge and agree that, at some time in the past, a fence
was placed alongside the entire length of the boundary between Licensee’s Property and
Licensor’s Property (the “Fence”); the parties further acknowledge and agree that, along
with the Fence, two large trees that have been planted next to the Fence and some
incidental landscaping that has been placed near the Fence (collectively, the “Existing
Improvements”) encroach onto Licensor’s Property by approximately two feet (2’) (the
“Fenced Area”).
E.Licensor and Licensee now desire to resolve any disputes between
themselves and their successors and assigns with regard to the Fence, the Existing
Improvements and the Fenced Area by memorializing the terms on which Licensor shall
allow Licensee personally to keep and maintain the Existing Improvements on the Fenced
Area and on which the Fence will be kept, maintained, repaired, improved and removed.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein
the parties agree as follows:
AGREEMENT:
1.License.
1.1 During the Term (defined in Section 2 below), Licensor hereby
expressly grants to Licensee a personal license (the “License”) to keep and maintain the
Existing Improvements on the Fenced Area, and for no other purpose (the “Permitted
FERRARI:128401.1 2
Use”). Licensee expressly may not place any other improvements within the Fenced
Area; without limiting the foregoing restriction, Licensee expressly may not plant any
large trees within the Fenced Area that would hinder or interfere with the removal of the
Fence as provided in this Agreement.
1.2 The parties hereby expressly agree that the rights granted to
Licensee under this Agreement are personal to Licensee, are not appurtenant to the
Licensor’s Property, may not be assigned or alienated, do not constitute exclusive
possession against the rest of the world, and do not constitute a tenancy or any other
interest in real property under California law or for any other purpose. The parties further
agree that neither party is an agent for or joint venturer with the other party.
1.3 Licensee shall carry out the Permitted Use on the Fenced Area at
Licensee’s sole risk, cost and expense, including all insurance and utilities charges
relating to the Fenced Area, and Licensee shall be solely responsible for the upkeep,
maintenance and repair and/or replacement of the Existing Improvements and the Fenced
Area. Licensee shall not make any modifications to the Existing Improvements or the
Fenced Area without first obtaining Licensor’s prior written consent, which may be
withheld in Licensor’s sole and absolute discretion. Licensee shall keep the Fence, the
Existing Improvements, the Fenced Area and Licensor’s Property free of mechanics liens
and claims resulting from the Permitted Use or any other activities with regard to the
Existing Improvements or the Fenced Area. All activity by Licensee and Licensee’s
invitees and contractors with regard to the Existing Improvements or the Fenced Area
shall be in compliance with all applicable laws, including all laws pertaining to the
handling and/or disposal of hazardous materials. Licensee agrees that the Permitted Use
that Licensee conducts with regard to the Existing Improvements and the Fenced Area
pursuant to the License shall be subject to such reasonable limits that Licensor may
impose from time to time during the Term. The parties further agree that Licensor shall
be responsible for all costs associated with the Fence, including any and all costs of
insurance, maintenance, repair, improvement, or removal.
2.Term, Termination Date and Removal. The term of this Agreement
(the “Term”) shall commence upon the Effective Date and end at such time that Licensee
no longer either (a) resides at the Licensee’s Property or (b) holds title to the Licensee’s
Property, unless sooner terminated as provided in this Agreement or by the subsequent
agreement of the parties (the “Termination Date”). Within ninety (90) days after the
Termination Date, Licensee or her successors and assigns shall cause the removal of
some or all of the Existing Improvements as determined by Licensor in Licensor’s sole
and absolute discretion, and Licensor shall then have the sole and exclusive use of the
Fenced Area together with the remainder of the Licensor’s Property. The decision to
remove the Fence after the Termination Date, and the timing of such removal, shall be
made in Licensor’s sole and absolute discretion, subject to any governmental approvals
that may be required, and the removal of the Fence shall to be performed at Licensor’s
sole cost and expense.
3.Restoration. In the event that any damage is caused to the Existing
Improvements or the Fenced Area during the Term, Licensee shall promptly restore the
FERRARI:128401.1 3
Existing Improvements and the Fenced Area to the same condition as existed before such
damage, at Licensee’s sole cost and expense. In the event that the Existing
Improvements or the Fenced Area is damaged to the extent that Licensee does not wish to
perform such restoration, regardless of whether such damage is covered by insurance,
Licensee shall have the option to elect not to perform such restoration, provided,
however, that Licensee or her successors and assigns shall cause the removal of some or
all of the Existing Improvements as determined by Licensor in Licensor’s sole and
absolute discretion, and that such election shall terminate the License. In the event that
any damage is caused to the Fence during the Term, Licensor shall be responsible for the
restoration of the Fence at its sole cost and expense.
4.Indemnity. Licensee agrees to indemnify, defend with counsel of
Licensor’s choice, and hold Licensor and Licensor’s shareholders, officers, directors,
agents, contractors and employees, and the Existing Improvements, the Fenced Area, and
the Licensor’s Property, harmless against, and in respect of, any and all claims, demands,
losses, costs, expenses, obligations, liabilities, damages, recoveries, and deficiencies,
including without limitation mechanic’s and materialmen’s liens, interest, penalties, and
reasonable attorneys’ fees, that Licensor may incur or suffer, that arise, result from, or
relate to (a) any breach of, or failure by Licensee to perform, any of Licensee’s
representations, warranties, covenants, or agreements under this Agreement, or (b) the
Permitted Activities, operations, activities or other conduct of Licensee or Licensee’s
invitees or contractors with regard to the Existing Improvements and/or the Fenced Area.
To the extent that such claims or damages relate to property damage, this indemnity shall
be limited to those perils covered by insurance, to the extent that such insurance proceeds
are available. The provisions of this indemnity shall survive the end of the Term with
respect to any claims or liability occurring prior to such expiration or sooner termination.
5.Miscellaneous.
5.1 Should any of the provisions of this Agreement be held by a court
of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, in conflict with any applicable law, or otherwise
unenforceable for any reason, in whole or in part, the validity of the remaining portions
or provisions of the Agreement and of the entire Agreement shall not be affected thereby,
but shall be severable and shall remain in force and effect.
5.2 No waiver or breach of any covenant or provision shall be deemed
a waiver of any other covenant or provision, and no waiver shall be valid unless in
writing and executed by the waiving party.
5.3 All notices, requests, demands, and other communications under
this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given on the
date of service if served personally on the party to whom notice is to be given, or on the
third day after mailing if mailed to the party to whom notice is to be given, by first class
mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid, and properly addressed as follows:
FERRARI:128401.1 4
Licensor:
The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose
1150 N First St., Suite 100
San Jose, CA 95112
Attn: Facilities Manager
Telephone: (408) 983-0168
Facsimile: (408) 983-0296
With a copy to:Daniel S. Gonzales, Esq.
Ferrari Ottoboni Caputo & Wunderling LLP
333 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 700
San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: (408) 280-0535
Facsimile: (408) 280-0151
Licensee:
Rita C. Vrhel
1125 Channing Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Any party may change its address for purposes of this Agreement by giving the other
parties written notice of the new address in the manner set forth above.
5.4 Headings are solely for the parties’ convenience, are not a part of
this Agreement, and shall not be used to interpret this Agreement. The singular form shall
include the plural and vice versa. This Agreement shall not be construed as if it had been
prepared by one of the parties, but rather as if both parties have prepared it. Unless
otherwise indicated, all references to Sections are to this Agreement.
5.5 This Agreement may not be amended or altered except by a written
instrument executed by the parties.
5.6 Whenever requested to do so by the other party, each party shall do
any other acts and execute, acknowledge, and deliver any requested documents in order
to carry out the intent and purpose of this Agreement.
5.7 Nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to
confer upon any person, other than the parties, any rights or remedies.
5.8 If any lawsuit is filed which relates to or arises out of this
Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party such
attorneys’ fees as the court may award, in addition to such other costs and expenses of
suit as may be allowed by law.
FERRARI:128401.1 5
5.9 This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
California, and any question arising under this Agreement shall be construed or
determined according to such law. Any action, arbitration, or other proceeding relating to
this Agreement shall be instituted and maintained in any court or other forum having
jurisdiction over such action, arbitration, or other proceeding in Santa Clara County,
California.
5.10 This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which taken together shall constitute
one and the same instrument. This Agreement will be considered executed by a party
when a copy of the signature of such party is delivered by electronic or facsimile
transmission and such copies shall be treated in all respects as having the same effect as
an original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the
Effective Date.
The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, a
California corporation sole
By
Rev. Msgr. Francis V. Cilia,
Attorney in fact
Date
Rita C. Vrhel
Date
St. Thomas Aquinas Parish Pastoral Center
By____________________________
Rev. Mathew D. Stanley,
Pastor
Date___________________________