DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F9F8991-B99A-4B80-AB23-7D5B3C0CC45D
11.a
Packet Pg. 129
City of Palo Alto
Form Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
AECOM/URS 2022 RATE SCHEDULE
The services under this Agreement will be compensated in accordance with the following consultant rate schedule and adjusted annually
Name/Position/Title Fully-Burdened Hourly
Rates**
Principal Professional/Project Director $296 - $429
Senior Project Manager $236 - $374
Project Manager $213 - $305
Lead Project Professional/Engineer $223 - $412
Senior Project Professional/Engineer $170 - $247
Sr. Designer/Lab, Field, or CADD Supervisor $149 - $196 Sr. Technician* $131 - $196
Sr. CADD Technician/Sr. Illustrator/Designer* $131 - $191 Project Professional/Engineer $131 - $224
Project Administrator/Controller $121 - $191
Staff Professional/Engineer $109 - $138
Junior Professional/Engineer $65 - $112
Word Processor/Project Assistant/Editor* $73 - $153
Technician* $65 - $165
CADD Technician/Illustrator* $73 - $135
Clerk/Administrator/Intern* $38 - $122
* Overtime premium charged at cost where required by law for non-exempt employees ** Bill rates are computed as actual pay rate at time of service plus current FAR multiplier plus 10% fee (raw labor + 130.70% for FY 2020 plus 10% fee = 253.77%) ** Salaries are adjusted each October 1, but individual merit or promotional increases may occur at any time.
Reimbursable Items to be
Billed
Subcontracted Services Cost plus 5%
In-house printing (per page) Color $1.00, B/W $.10, no
markup
Vehicles $90/day, $45/½ day, no markup
Personal vehicles (mileage) Current IRS rate, no markup Other miscellaneous Expenses At cost
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F9F8991-B99A-4B80-AB23-7D5B3C0CC45D
11.a
Packet Pg. 130
City of Palo Alto (ID # 14406)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/23/2022
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: SECOND READING: Permanent Parklet Program Discussion and Direction
Title: SECOND READING: Review and provide feedback on the proposed permanent parklet standards and program policies; and Adopt an interim ordinance and resolution to continue the pilot parklet program until December 31, 2022 (FIRST READING: May 9, 2022: PASSED 7 -0) From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
This was heard by the City Council on May 9, 2022 for a first reading and was approved 7- 0. No changes were made to the Ordinance; it is now before you for a second reading.
Attachments:
Attachment12.a: Attachment A - Permanent Parklet Program Standards DRAFT (PDF) Attachment12.b: Attachment B Interim Ordinance Temporarily Continuing Expansion of Outdoor Dining, Retail, and Other Activites on Public and Private Property (PDF) Attachment12.c: Attachment C Resolution Continuing the Pilot Parklet Demostration Program as Continued by Reso 9992 (PDF)
Attachment12.d: Attachment D - Review Of Peer City Standards (PDF) 12 Packet Pg. 131
1 DRAFT PALO ALTO PERMANENT PARKLETS PROGRAM
I. Introduction
The City of Palo Alto has developed a Permanent Parklet Program that will allow for parklet installations in eligible areas of Palo Alto.
The following standards outline the requirements for parklet installation including, location, materials, and design. The City of Palo Alto will review all parklet permit applications and will only approve parklets that are able to meet the standards. Due to the unique circumstances of each proposed parklet location, some parklets may require additional review by key departments (as outlined).
All parklets—including installations previously installed under the pilot parklet program—will require a new Permanent Parklet Permit from the City of Palo Alto. Application requirements are outlined in Section IV (A) Submittal Requirements.
II. Glossary
Due to the unique design and placement of parklets, there are several terms with distinct meanings that should be understood in order to implement the standards.
1. Enclosure—Protective barrier that follows the parklet edge.
2. Parklet Edge—The outermost perimeter of parklet area (subtracting required setbacks).
3. Parklet Footprint—The total area with in the parklet edge that can be utilized by a project applicant.
4. Platform—Base of the parklet that is at grade with the sidewalk.
5. Travel Lane—Portion of the street with active automobile traffic. `
Figure 1: Key Terms
12.a
Packet Pg. 132
2 III. Location and Setback Requirements
A. Location
The location of a parklet is dependent on the eligibility criteria, which varies based on the type of parking space a parklet will occupy (parallel parking spaces, angled spaces, and non-standard spaces).
1. Eligibility
a. Parklets are only permitted on streets with speed limits of 25 mph or less. b. Parklets are generally permitted on streets with a running slope (grade) of five percent or less.
c. Parklets cannot be installed in any portion of an existing travel lane at any time. d. When located near an intersection, parklets must be located at least 20 feet from the rear most boundary of a crosswalk at the nearest intersection of the street corner. Exceptions will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
2. Parallel Parking
a. For parallel parking spaces, the parklet structure must be set back 48 inches (4 feet) from adjacent marked parking spaces.
b. It is recommended, though not required, that a parklet consist of at least two contiguous parallel parking spaces.
c. A parklet’s outer edge shall be 2 feet back from the outer edge of the parking space it occupies. For all parallel parking spaces located on public streets within the City of Palo Alto, this shall be 2 feet from the exterior edge (closest to traffic) of marked parking T’s. This is shown in Figure A.
Figure 2: Dimensions of a Parallel Parking Space Parklet
12.a
Packet Pg. 133
3 d. These 2 feet shall be kept clear at all times. The only objects which shall lawfully occupy this space are reflective delineator posts, or their equal.
e. Parallel parking spaces typically measure 8 feet wide by 20 feet long. Given the above mentioned 2 feet offset from the outer edge of the parking space, and the 4-foot setbacks creating buffer space for wheel stops (if no tree wells are present on the adjacent areas), the dimensions of a parklet in one parking space would be 6 feet wide x 12 feet long. (Figure A). If the existing parking stall width is less than 8 (eight) feet, the parklet shall be 2 feet less than the parking stall width.
f. Parallel parking space measurements may vary across the City of Palo Alto. As a result of this variation, some parklets may measure less than 6 feet wide. g. Variations notwithstanding, in no case shall a parklet be placed within the 2-foot area measured from the outer edge of the parking space.
3. Angle Parking Spaces
1. A parklet in an angle parking space shall consist of at least two contiguous angled parking spaces.
2. A parklet’s outer edge shall be 2 feet back from the outer edge of the existing angled parking space. For angled parking spaces located on public streets within the City of Palo Alto, this shall be 2 feet from the exterior edge (closest to traffic) of the marked parking stall. This is shown in Figure B.
3. Offset from neighboring parallel space may be need?
4. Non-Standard Spaces
1. A non-standard parking space is an angle or parallel space that does not meet the City of Palo Alto’s standard width or length for parking spaces. For parallel parking spaces, the standard dimensions are ______. For angle parking spaces, standard dimensions are _________.
2. A parklet proposed in angled parking spaces that do not meet the City of Palo Alto’s Figure 3: Angle Parking Space Parklet Dimensions
12.a
Packet Pg. 134
4 standard depth for angle parking spaces may only be eligible for parallel parking space parklets. Office of Transportation staff, in partnership with Public Works, will review plans for such sites; this may include a site visit. The additional review will help maximize the parklet while maintaining an adequate travel lane.
3. For diagonal and perpendicular parking spaces, the edge of the parklet structure must be set back 36 inches from the adjacent parking space on either side. (This applies to all angle parking spaces along University Avenue as nearly all are substandard).
4. In the event a restricted area (i.e., loading zone) is being proposed to be used as space for a parklet, the applicant shall consider the relocation of this restricted area as part of their design and work with OOT prior to application submittal to determine relocation placement.
B. Parklet Setbacks
5. Adjacent Setbacks
a. All parklets are required to include 4-foot setbacks from adjacent on-street parking spaces.
This setback shall be delineated by a concrete wheel stop affixed to the street (see ‘Traffic Safety’ below).
b. All parklets are required to include 2-foot setback from adjacent driveways. c. The parklet shall be set back at least 9 feet from the adjacent building(s) with no part of the parklet extending over the curb or sidewalk.
d. Parklets are prohibited in front of active driveways, on street curves, or hills where horizontal or vertical sight-distance is a safety issue as determined by the Office of Transportation.
6. Setback Area
a. The setback may not contain seating or any other objects. b. Neither the construction nor operation of the parklet shall interfere with, obstruct, or otherwise diminish the adjacent sidewalk and pedestrian path of travel. c. All walkways and sidewalks shall maintain at least 8 (eight) feet clear, unobstructed path of travel.
d. If an 8 foot clear, unobstructed path of travel cannot be maintained, then sidewalk dining may not occur in conjunction with a parklet.
C. Other Location Criteria
1. Proximity to Utilities and Public Facilities
a. Parklets must not block public utilities, bus stops, driveways, telecommunication vaults, or other in-ground infrastructure.
i. Parklets shall not be placed over gas main or gas services due to potential hazards. b. Parklets located next to alleys must be set back 5 (five) feet from the outside edge of the driveway as measured from the curb face/gutter flowline. c. Parklets shall be placed no closer than 50 feet from a bus stop loading zone. d. Parklets shall be placed no closer than 15 feet from fire hydrants.
12.a
Packet Pg. 135
5 e. Parklets shall be placed no closer than 5 feet from manhole covers to allow for maintenance access.
f. Parklets shall be placed no closer than 5 feet from a storm drain catch basin in each direction. Parklet construction and design must allow access to the catch basin and shall not obstruct catch basin.
g. In the event that a parklet location is in conflict with public infrastructure (i.e., public signage, benches, etc.) the applicant shall work with the Office of Public Works and/or Office of Transportation prior to submittal to determine relocation.
2. Fire Safety
a. No portion of the parklet or associated seating shall block FDC or associated equipment. b. Business address shall be visible from the street and cannot be fully obstructed by the parklet and associated materials.
3. Street Trees
a. Any portion of the proposed parklet must maintain the following clearances from existing street trees:
b. Horizontal clearance equal to a two-foot radius around the tree well. c. Vertical clearance of 3 feet measured from the highest point of the parklet (if proposing a parklet with a roof).
d. At no time shall there be materials placed in the tree well area or within City planters.
4. Bike Facilities
c. Bicycle racks or other bicycle facilities shall not be removed, made unusable, or otherwise disturbed or obstructed by the construction of a parklet. i. Any parklet design that proposes such disruption shall require review by and approval of the Office of Transportation.
d. Applicants are encouraged to incorporate bike parking into their parklet design.
5. Accessibility
1. The sidewalk and parklet path of travel must comply with the appropriate Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Building Code (CBC) chapter 11B accessibility provisions.
2. The parklet path of travel must comply with CBC chapter 10 exiting requirements.
IV. Parklet Design
The following guidelines describe both the safety and design requirements for parklet applications including standards for:
• Platform
• Enclosure
• Traffic Safety
• Furnishings & Fixtures
A. Platform
1. Structural
12.a
Packet Pg. 136
6 a. Parklets shall be constructed with quality materials and shall be of natural durable wood (such as redwood, cedar, etc.), preservative treated wood, or other engineered material suitable for exterior conditions.
b. The parklet platform must support 100 pounds per square foot of live load. c. All fastening hardware and fasteners adjacent to and into preservative treated wood must be hot-dipped zinc coated galvanized steel, stainless steel, silicon bronze, or copper.
2. Drainage & Ventilation
a. The underside of the platform shall be constructed to allow for seasonal drainage. b. Adequate cross ventilation shall be installed to allow for the surface to dry within 12 –24 hours. c. Openings under the platform shall be screened with corrosion-resistant material with a maximum one quarter inch mesh.
d. Parklets shall not impede the flow of curbside drainage. The parklet design shall include a 4- 1/2”x 8” clearance from sidewalk curb along the entire length of the parklet. Openings at either end of the parklet shall be covered with screens to prevent debris buildup beneath the parklet and in the gutter. The closure 2x decking can be removable for easy access for under platform inspection as needed. See Figure 4 for suggested platform attachment design details.
3. Platform Attachment
[Note: Figure 4 is subject to changes based on discussions with Building and Public Works departments. This image is illustrative only.]
a. The parklet shall be anchored to the City street and/or curb. Any anchoring proposed into the public street will require USA markings and additional staff review. Platform system shall be anchored at maximum 6’-0 apart in each direction to the roadway to avoid movement during an earthquake. See Figure 4 above.
b. The anchor shall be installed perpendicular to the curb. c. The manner of anchoring shall be through a pre-drilled hole into the curb and a concrete anchor bolt.
d. Limit anchoring to 6-12 inches embedment.
4. Roofs
a. Structural
i. Complete roof framing plan, which includes horizonal and vertical bracing, is required Figure 4: Suggested Platform Attachment Design
12.a
Packet Pg. 137
7 to be submitted with structural calculations. A civil and/or structural engineer shall sign the plan and associated calculations.
ii. All connector hardware and fasteners shall be resistant to corrosion and listed as compatible to the framing material.
iii. Roof may be a solid uniform material or open construction (i.e., trellis, pergola, etc.) iv. Roofs shall not be attached or connected to a building. v. Roof shall slope toward the street to ensure rainwater drains into the street. vi. Gutters and rain leaders are required.
vii. Roofs shall not extend over the public sidewalk.
viii. Roof’s outer edges along the travel lane may extend 6 inches beyond parklet footprint at 8 feet or above to allow for attachment of the rain leaders and gutters only. b. Height
i. The roof shall be a minimum height of 9 feet, but no taller than 12 feet, as measured from the platform grade.
c. Materials
i. Rooftop material may be of plywood sheathing, polycarbonate sheets, or sheet metal.
Roof framing maybe of one neutral tone such as natural or stained wood, or painted brown, black, beige, or other earth tones.
ii. Fabric roofing is not allowed.
iii. Roof material may be a solid uniform material or open construction (i.e., trellis, pergola, etc.)
iv. All exposed wood is required to be treated for exposure to weather.
5. Design
a. Platform decking materials shall be of one consistent material and be of a neutral tone such as natural or stained wood or painted brown, black, beige, or other earth tones.
6. Accessibility
a. The parklet shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). b. The surface of the parklet platform must be flush with the adjacent sidewalk with a maximum gap of one quarter inch and one quarter inch vertical tolerance. c. A minimum 4-foot-wide accessible path of travel and 5-foot diameter turnaround space must be maintained within the parklet.
d. Any abrupt changes in elevation exceeding 4 inches along an accessible path of travel shall be identified by 6-inch-tall warning curbs.
B. Enclosures
1. Dimensions & Load
a. Parklets are required to include a continuous barrier along the parklet edge to bolster parklet user safety. The barrier shall be located on the outermost edge of the platform on all sides adjacent to the travel lane and the parklet ends. The sidewalk edge of the parklet may be enclosed or open.
b. This continuous enclosure shall include a periodic barrier, which may be planters or other heavy material, along the parklet edge, and when filled with soil, sand, water, or concrete weighs 500 lbs. along the edge perpendicular to traffic and spaced at least every 6 feet along the parklet edge parallel to traffic.
12.a
Packet Pg. 138
8 c. The periodic barrier shall measure at least XX [still under deliberation, to be determined] in width, and a height no shorter than 36 inches and no higher than 42 inches measured from the street level.
d. The enclosure must comply with the California Building Code for guardrails, this includes but is not limited to guardrail gaps (smaller than a 4 inch sphere) and height (42 inches).
2. Design
a. Enclosure materials must be high-quality, durable, and non-reflective including but not limited to hardwood, steel, concrete planters, etc.
a. Materials that are not permitted: Aluminum, particle board, and vinyl. b. The continuous enclosure must be a neutral tone such as natural or stained wood, or painted brown, black, beige, or other earth tones, or be made of steel, iron (wrought or cast), or other non-reflective, all-weather proofed metals.
c. Street facing colors used on the exterior of enclosure must be matte-finish paint or opaque stain.
d. Parklets shall integrate and/or incorporate vegetation into the enclosure (edge treatment) at least every six (6) feet.
a. The height of any plants contained within planters in setback or planters serving as a parklet platform enclosure shall not exceed 6".
b. Plant material shall not impede or hinder pedestrian and vehicular visibility. c. No plants shall have thorns, spikes, or sharp edges. d. Poisonous or invasive plants are not permitted.
Figures above illustrate compliant examples of a parklet enclosure.
C. Traffic Safety
1. Wheel Stops
a. When a parklet is adjacent to active parallel parking spaces, a wheel stop must be installed. The wheel stop shall measure 3 feet long by 4 inches high. It shall be constructed of concrete or rubber.
b. Affixing Wheel Stops
i. Drilled-in Wheel stops: A permittee will need USA clearance to anchor a wheel stop into the road.
c. Location
i. The wheel stop shall be placed one foot from the curb at the edge of the front parking space.
12.a
Packet Pg. 139
9 ii. A wheel stop shall be placed one foot from the curb at the edge of the rear parking space.
iii. Wheel stops shall be placed four feet from the parklet structure. d. Exceptions
i. Parklets extending the length between two in-street tree wells, as on University Avenue, may omit wheel stops.
Figure 5: Wheel Stop
2. Reflective Delineators
a. The parklet shall include installation of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) approved delineator posts or flexible bollards. b. Location
i. Delineator posts shall be surface mounted to the roadway via epoxy and/or glue down methods unless approved otherwise.
ii. Reflective delineators must be installed at the outside corners of the parklet. The channelizers or posts must align with the end of the platform and not encroach on the travel lane.
iii. Additional delineators must be placed every 20 (twenty) feet in the 2 foot buffer zone along the lane of travel—but not in the lane of travel. c. Dimensions
i. Right side of trave lane - Delineators shall be 42 inches high and white with white reflective bands for use on the right side of a travel lane. ii. Left side of travel lane – Delineators shall be 42 inches high and be white with yellow reflective bands if used on the left edge of a travel lane. d. Maintenance
i. Maintenance of the delineator posts shall be the responsibility of the Permit holder. ii. Permittee shall replace any missing or damaged delineators within 24 hours of a delineator’s failure or with 24 hours’ notice from the City.
Examples of these devices are illustrated in Figures 6 and 7.
12.a
Packet Pg. 140
10 Figure 6: Reflective Delineator (Left Travel Lane)
Figure 7: Reflective Delineator (Right Travel Lane)
3. Travel Clearance
a. Parklets shall provide a minimum 2-foot clearance from the edge of the travel lane (measured from the parking striping adjacent to the travel lane) to ensure safe separation from traffic.
D. Furnishings & Fixtures
1. Materials
a. Parklet furnishings and fixtures must be high-quality, durable, and non-reflective including but not limited to: Hardwood, steel, concrete, etc.
i. Materials that are not permitted: Aluminum, particle board, and vinyl. b. Parklet design and materials shall match the colors, textures, and design of the accompanying business storefront.
c. Parklets shall utilize outdoor grade reflective tape to mark changes in grade.
2. Power Supply
a. Propane is not permitted to be used for heaters.
b. Electrical power supply to the parklet, including receptacle outlets, shall comply with permanent wiring methods as outlined in the adopted California Electrical code.
12.a
Packet Pg. 141
11 c. Applicants must apply and obtain the appropriate electrical permit with a maximum of one conduit per parklet.
d. No power cords or conduits are allowed under the sidewalk. All electrical conduits shall be installed overhead, with a minimum height of 10 feet at the lowest point. Overhead conductors shall be properly sized and supported.
e. Generators are not allowed in association with parklets. f. Parklet power source shall not be pulled from city sidewalk lighting or supported by trees.
3. Heaters
a. Parklets without Roofs
i. Electric space heaters are permitted if they are an outdoor approved type, are located in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. ii. Heaters must be placed at least 5 feet away from any combustible materials. iii. Heaters may not be used or stored under a tent, canopy, or umbrella. iv. A fire extinguisher is required to be mounted within sight and have appropriate signage per the Fire Code.
v. Heaters must maintain at least 6 feet of clearance from any portion of street tree. b. Parklets with Roofs
i. Any new electric circuits required for heating and lighting require an electrical permit from the Building Department (see ‘Power Supply’ above). Any electrical equipment must be listed and carry a product certificate for its intended use by a recognized electrical testing laboratory.
ii. Permanently mounted electric heaters must follow all manufacturer's instructions and applicable code requirements.
iii. A fire extinguisher is required to be mounted within sight and have appropriate signage per the Fire Code.
4. Lighting
a. Outdoor lighting, such as decorative string lights are allowed if parklet permit holders can connect this lighting to a GFCI-protected branch circuit properly sized to accommodate the additional load.
b. Listed exterior rated extension cords must be sized properly for the anticipated load and not create tripping hazards. Extension cords shall not extend over any part of the sidewalk at grade.
c. Extension cords are not to be a substitute for permanent wiring. d. If utilized, extension cords shall be installed overhead with a minimum height of 10 feet at the lowest point. No cords can extend under the parklet floor or any floor coverings. e. The use of electrical adapters and power strips are prohibited. All lighting and extension cords must be rated for exterior use, listed, and carry a product certificate for its intended use by a recognized electrical testing laboratory.
f. Lighting must be LED only.
g. Lighting shall be limited to the parklet area and not encroach into any portion of the public sidewalk.
h. Low Voltage Wiring (such as might be used for speakers, though please note amplified music is not allowed)
i. All low voltage wiring must be installed per the adopted California electrical code.
5. Umbrellas
12.a
Packet Pg. 142
12 a. Permitted Umbrella Types:
i. Table Umbrella
ii. Tilting Umbrella
iii. Off-set/ Cantilever Umbrella
b. No portion of an umbrella shall extend beyond the edge and/or enclosure of the parklet on any side.
c. No umbrella shall obstruct the view from the street between three (3) and eight (8) feet, measured from the street, from any side.
6. Signage
a. Parklet signage is limited to six (6) square feet and shall be limited to the name of the business and shall be non-illuminated and non-reflective. Letters no taller than 15”. b. Businesses are permitted one (1) sign on their parklet, total. c. Signs must be affixed to the outer most portion of the parklet enclosure no higher than 36” from the street grade.
d. No form of advertising is permitted to be painted or mounted on any surface or area of the parklet.
e. Any existing parking signs installed adjacent to the parklet must be covered with opaque plastic; such coverage or illegibility shall occur only in manners approved by the City of Palo Alto through its Department of Public Works and/or its Office of Transportation.
7. Seating & Furniture
a. Accessibility
i. The establishment must provide 5% accessible seating for each type of seating provided (table, booth, etc.) or a minimum of 1 seat per type, whichever is greater, in an outdoor seating area where the slope is no greater than 2% in any direction. ii. Such ADA accessible areas shall include a clear path of travel to the seating and a 60” diameter turnaround area.
iii. Such ADA accessible seating shall be provided at an accessible height which includes:
i. Table surface between 28 to 34 inches high.
ii. At least 27 inches of space from the floor to the bottom of the table. iii. Knee clearance extends at least 19 inches under the table. iv. Total clear floor area of 30 inches by 48 inches per seat. iv. Such ADA accessible seating shall be of the same size and appearance as the establishment’s other outdoor seating.
b. Street Furniture
i. Street furniture including tables, chairs, benches, etc. shall be all-weather, and of a high-quality material.
12.a
Packet Pg. 143
13 Figures above illustrate street furniture examples.
8. Landscape
a. Vegetation shall be comprised of native, low-water use, and drought tolerant plants. b. No plants shall have thorns, spikes, or sharp edges. c. Poisonous or invasive plants are not permitted.
V. Operational Standards
9. Private Control
Staff continue to develop language regarding the private control of this area under the terms of the permit.
10. Alcohol Service
a. Parklets that serve alcoholic beverages shall include appropriate fencing or other barriers to delineate the space and adhere to Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) regulations. b. All physical requirements of ABC should be reflected in the design submitted for review. c. [Note: the following is still in discussion and a clear process is yet to be determined] A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment is required to allow alcohol service at a parklet. d. A restaurant with existing CUP for alcohol service must submit an application to Planning and Development Services to amend the existing CUP to expand alcohol service to parklet. e. The CUP Amendment must be approved before alcohol service is allowed at a parklet.
11. Site Maintenance
a. Parklets shall be maintained free of litter and debris. b. The parklet area and adjacent sidewalk shall be scrubbed and mopped to remove any food or drink stains on a daily basis by the permittee.
12. Hours of Operation
a. The parklet shall adhere to the same approved hours of operation as the associated business.
b. Note: In the CN or CS zone districts, a CUP is needed to operate/activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and approval conditions for operations during these hours are to ensure the operation is compatible with the abutting (or within 50 feet of) residential property.
VI. PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
A. Submittal Requirements
1. Site Plan—Site plan shall be drawn to scale on 11 x17 tabloid paper, include all pertinent dimensions and the following information:
a. Location of the business frontage
b. Dimensions of the parklet platform
c. ADA accessibility measurements
d. Setbacks from adjacent parking spaces and the adjacent traffic lane
12.a
Packet Pg. 144
14 e. Locations of traffic protection improvements including wheel stops, reflective delineators, etc.
f. Location of public utilities including any manhole covers, gutter drains, fire hydrants, and FDCs, light poles, etc. (and distances to parklet)
g. Any adjacent installations on the sidewalk including parking meters, utility boxes, street signs, bike racks, street furniture, etc. (and distances to parklet) h. Existing parking space striping
i. Crosswalks, bus stops, driveways (and distances to parklet) j. Width of sidewalk
k. Planters (if applicable)
2. Elevations
a. Elevation drawing showing the following information:
b. Height and design of platform railings/guards or edge buffers c. Height and design of roof (if applicable)
d. Heating, lighting, other electrical equipment
e. Power connection (show distance from ground to overhead wire) f. Storm water drainage
g. Cross-section drawing of parklet
3. Construction Drawing/Calculation
a. Structural drawings
b. Structural calculations (if applying for parklet with roof) c. heating, lighting, other electrical equipment
d. electrical power connection/source
4. Pictures of proposed site—The application should include at least 3 photos showing existing built parklet, if applicable, the proposed parking space(s) converted into a parklet, adjacent sidewalk and store frontage
5. List of all materials and equipment proposed
a. Materials palette showing the following information:
i. Proposed materials for platform
ii. Proposed materials for railings or edge buffers
iii. Proposed furnishings
iv. Roof material (if applicable)
b. Equipment sheet including:
i. Image of equipment
ii. Any manufacturer instructions
c. Planters, including dimensions and weight.
d. Type of plants
6. Parklet Information:
a. Number of parking spaces requested
b. Perpendicular or angled spaces
c. Color of curb
d. Proposed use of parklet
e. Business hours of operation
f. Parklet Designer/ Architect/ Engineer/ Construction Firm contact (if applicable) g. Signage (if applicable)
7. Business Information
a. Business Address
12.a
Packet Pg. 145
15 b. City of Palo Alto Business License Number
8. Business Owner Information
9. Property Owner Information (if different than applicant)
10. Insurance Documents
11. Letter(s) of Support - If the proposed parklet extends beyond the applicant’s storefront, the applicant shall obtain letters of support from the neighboring ground-floor building owner(s) and tenant(s). [Draft template to be provided, still being drafted by staff].
12. Indemnity Acknowledgement
B. Failure to Maintain
A parklet sponsor who fails to properly and sufficiently maintain the cleanliness, safety, and accessibility of their parklet may be subject to violations and fines. If maintenance issues are not resolved, the City may revoke the encroachment permit and the parklet sponsor may be required by the City to remove the parklet at their own expense.
C. Utility Maintenance & Public Safety
Because a parklet may sit atop buried utilities, there may be instances where a parklet will need to be removed to access a utility beneath it. In the event of necessary utility maintenance or the unlikely event of a utility failure such as a gas leak or water main break that threatens public safety, the City or utility owner may remove parklets with little or no notice. Parklet sponsors are responsible for the cost of re-installing and restoring any damage to the parklet.
In instances of advanced notice (such as street repaving, planned maintenance, etc.), the parklet sponsor may need to remove and reinstall the parklet at their sole expense. If the sponsor cannot remove the parklet, the City will remove the parklet.
D. Parklet Removal
If for some reason the parklet sponsor decides no longer wants to maintain a parklet, the parklet sponsor is responsible for notifying the City and removing it at the parklet sponsors’ own expense.
Immediately upon removal the parklet area shall be cleaned and restored to its previous condition to the satisfaction of the City.
E. Permit Fees, Permit Charges, and Deposit
[Note: Fee methodology for annual or monthly leasing fee is still to be determined in addition to any resulting fee for ongoing program management].
12.a
Packet Pg. 146
NOT YET ADOPTED
249_20220427_ts24 1
Ordinance No. ____
Interim Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Temporarily Continuing the Expansion of Outdoor Dining, Retail and Other Activities on Public and Private Property and Relaxing Regulations Regarding Onsite Parking, On-Sale of Alcohol, Design/Architectural Review, Permit Fees, and Alcohol Consumption in Public Places, All to Facilitate Such Outdoor Use
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1
. F indings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On June 23, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5500, an emergency ordinance, in response to COVID -19 and its effects on local businesses. At that time and since then, county and state regulations related to CO VID-19 have limited or curtailed many indoor activities, including dining, bars, retail, performances, and other recreational uses.
B. In June 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5526, which amended and restated Ordinance 5500 on a non-emergency basis (among other changes). Ordinance 5526 will sunset on December 31, 2021 unless amended by the City Council.
C. On November 8, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5533, which amended and restated Ordinance 5526 with a new sunset date of June 30, 2022 to allow the provisions of that ordinance to continue.
D. The City Council now desires to amend and restate Ordinance 5533 to extend its provisions through December 31, 2022.
SECTION 2
. City Manager Authorization
The City Manager or his or her designee(s) may promulgate guidelines and implementing regulations for the uses and programs described in this Ordinance as long as such regulations do not conflict with this Ordinance.
SECTION 3
. Fee Waivers for Encroachment Permits and Parking Space Closures
A. The permit fees set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule are temporarily waived for applications for encroachment permits under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.12.010 and Section 12.12.020, as modified by this Ordinance, to place structures and equipment in the public right-of-way (including closed streets and sidewalks) for purposes of outdoor dining and outdoor retail sales and display of wares.
12.b
Packet Pg. 147
NOT YET ADOPTED
249_20220427_ts24 2
B. The parking space closure fee in the Municipal Fee Schedule collected by the Department of Planning and Development Services is temporarily waived for the use of a parking space(s) on-street or in a parking lot for purposes of outdoor dining and outdoor retail sales and display of wares as authorized through an encroachment permit, license, or agreement with the City.
SECTION 4
. Modified Review Process for Commercial Sidewalk Encroachment Permits
Notwithstanding contrary provisions of PAMC Section 12.12.020, permits may be granted for commercial sidewalk encroachments for outdoor retail sales and display areas and outdoor eating areas. Permits for these purposes shall not be required to undergo and complete design review by the Planning Department described in subsection (d) of Section 12.12.020. Except as expressly modified herein, the provisions of Section 12.12.020 shall apply to commercial sidewalk encroachments.
SECTION 5
. Eating and Drinking Establishments
Eating establishments, and drinking establishments may temporarily relocate some or all of their existing indoor seating capacity to outdoor seating capacity, as follows:
A. Location
. Outdoor eating areas may be placed in one or more of the following areas:
1. Public streets temporarily closed by the City of Palo Alto, through issuance of an encroachment permit under PAMC Section 12.12.010;
2. Sidewalks through issuance of an encroachment permit under PAMC Section
12.12.020, as modified by Section 4 of this Ordinance;
3. In on -street parking spaces approved for use as temporary parklets , in accordance with the Pilot Parklet Demonstration Project as first approved by Council Resolution No. 9909 and continued by subsequent resolutions;
4. Surface p arking lots that currently provide required onsite parking for the eating/drinking establishment, through issuance of an approval by the Director of Planning, or his or her designee , as described in subsections C and D of this Section, below;
5. Other outdoor areas on the eating /drinking establishment site not originally permitted for outdoor seating in the establishment’s approved site plan or planning entitlement ( such as landscaped areas ), through issuance of an approval by the Director of Planning, or his or her designee, in accordance with subsections C and D of this Section, below; and
6. In other areas that the Council identifies by resolution or ordinance.
12.b
Packet Pg. 148
NOT YET ADOPTED
249_20220427_ts24 3
B. U
se of Private Parking Lots – Temporary Reduction of Parking Requirements.
1. N
otwithstanding the parking requirements applicable to eating /drinking establishments in Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC or in individual planning entitlements or approvals for eating /drinking establishments, an eating/drinking establishment may place outdoor eating areas in its parking lot, so long as at least half of the parking spaces on the subject site remain available for use by vehicles. If the establishment’s parking lot has ten or fewer parking spaces, up to 100 percent of the parking lot may be used for outdoor eating, subject to review and approval of the Planning Director or his or her designee.
2. N
otwithstanding the parking requirements applicable to shopping centers and their tenant businesses in Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC or in individual pla nning entitlements or approvals for shopping centers or their tenant businesses, a shopping center with an eating /drinking establishment tenant(s) may place outdoor eating areas for such tenant business(es) in the shopping center parking lot, so long as at least half of the parking spaces on the subject site remain available for use by vehicles.
C. Ap
plication. A n application in a form approved by the Director of Planning shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Services Department to relocate some or all of an eating /drinking establishment’s permitted indoor restaurant seating to outdoor seating in privately-owned areas on the eating/drinking establishment site not originally permitted for outdoor eating. The Director of Planning is authorized to establish submittal requirements and procedures. Temporary Use Permit s (TUP) under PAMC Section 18.42.050 may be utilized for this purpose. A TUP issued for this purpose may be valid for a specified period longer than 45 days, notwithstanding subsection (d) of Section
18.42.050. The Planning Director may extend a TUP issued prior to the effective date of this Ordinance to be valid beyond 45 days.
D. Se
ating Layout Review. A Seating Layout Review is required to relocate some or all of an eating/drinking establishment’s permitted indoor seating to outdoor seating in privately- owned areas on the eating /drinking establishment site not originally permitted for outdoor eating. The Seating Layout Review shall be conducted by a transportation planner, planner, and/or fire inspector who will review and either approve or require modifications to the proposed outdoor seating layout based on the following criteria:
1. Se
ating layout does not create a safety risk and adequate pedestrian and vehicular separation is maintained, including with movable barriers as appropriate where outdoor seating is to be placed in parking lots or on-street parking spaces.
2. Se
ating layout accommodates appropriate vehicle and pedestrian circulation and maintains adequate paths of travel and complies with accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
12.b
Packet Pg. 149
NOT YET ADOPTED
249_20220427_ts24 4
3. A
ny tents must comply with fire codes and Palo Alto Fire Department issued standards for tents, and safety standards set forth by the National Fire Protection Association for fire-resistant tents and must include an affixed manufacturer’s label stating the tent meets NFPA requirements. A State Fire Marshal seal on the tent o r a certificate is needed to prove treatment.
4. Any
heaters must comply with fire codes.
5. An
adequate and visible barrier is placed that clearly separates the retail area from the parking area and provides sufficient protection for patrons. Adequacy shall be defined in standards and guidelines issued by the Director of Planning.
6. O
ther requirements established in the standards and guidelines issued by the Director of Planning.
E. Fe
e. No fee will be charged for submittal and review of the Application and for conducting a Seating Layout Review.
F. O
ccupancy. Total seating occupancy (including all indoor and outdoor seating) shall not exceed the overall occupancy for which the restaurant is permitted.
G. Alc
ohol Service. Establishments that are allowed by the City to serve alcohol for onsite consumption by issuance of a conditional use permit (“CUP”) as required by PAMC Section
18.42.090 or as a legal nonconforming use, and that both have an on -sale license from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) and are duly authorized by ABC to serve alcohol in outdoor areas, shall be allowed to serve alcohol for onsite consumption in such outdoor areas, notwithstanding any prohibition on outdoor alcohol service or consumption in the PAMC or planning entitlement issued under Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC. During the effective period of this Ordinance, establishments that meet the preceding requirements may expand their footprint to outdoor areas without a n amendment of the CUP, notwithstanding PAMC Section 18.42.090(c). Outdoor alcohol service shall be in full compliance with ABC regulations, as amended.
H. N
o Architectural Review . Notwithstanding PAMC Sections 18.77.077 and 18.76.020, architectural review shall not be required for proposed outdoor eating areas or signage related to such areas during the effective period of this Ordinance.
S
ECTION 6. Retail Establishments
R
etail establishments may temporarily relocate some or all of their existing customer-accessible square footage to outdoor spaces as follows:
12.b
Packet Pg. 150
NOT YET ADOPTED
249_20220427_ts24 5
A. L ocation . Outdoor retail sales and display areas and outdoor eating areas may be placed in one or more of the following areas:
1. P
ublic streets temporarily closed by the City of Palo Alto, through issuance of an encroachment permit under PAMC Section 12.12.010;
2. Sid
ewalks through issuance of an encroachment permit under PAMC Sec tion
12.12.020, as modified by Section 4 of this Ordinance;
3. Su
rface parking lots that currently provide required onsite parking for the retail establishment, through issuance of an approval by the Director of Planning , or his or her designee, as described in subsections C and D of this Section, below;
4. O
ther outdoor areas on the retail establishment site not originally permitted for retail sales and display or dining in the retail establishment’s approved site plan or planning entitlement (such as landscaped areas), through issuance of an approval by the Director of Planning or his or her designee in accordance with subsections C and D of this Section, below; and
5. I
n other areas that the Council identifies by resolution or ordinance.
B. Us
e of Private Parking Lots – Temporary Reduction of Parking Requirements.
1. N
otwithstanding the parking requirements applicable to retail establishments in Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC or in individual planning entitlements or approvals for retail establishments, a retail establishment may conduct outdoor retail sales and display and may place outdoor eating areas in its parking lot, so long as at least half of the parking spaces on the subject site remain available for use by vehicles. If the establishment’s parking lot has ten or fewer parking spaces, up to 100 percent of the parking lot may be used for outdoor dining/retail , subject to review and approval of the Planning Director or his or her designee.
2. N
otwithstanding the parking requirements applicable to shopping centers and their tenant businesses in Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC or in individual planning entitlements or approvals for shopping centers or their tenant businesses, a shopping center with a retail establishment tenant(s) may place outdoor retail sales and display areas and outdoor eating areas for such tenant business(es) in the shopping center parking lot, so long as at least half of the parking spaces on the subject site remain available for use by vehicles.
C. Ap
plication. An application in a form approved by the Director of Planning shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Services Department to relocate some or all of a retail establishment’s customer-accessible square footage to outdoor retail sales and display in privately-owned areas on the retail establishment site not originally permitted
12.b
Packet Pg. 151
NOT YET ADOPTED
249_20220427_ts24 6
for outdoor retail sales and display . The Director of Planning is authorized to establish submittal requirements and procedures. Temporary Use Permits (TUP) under PAMC Section 18.42.050 may be utilized for this purpose. A TUP issued for this purpose may be valid for a specified period longer than 45 days, notwithstanding subsection (d) of Section
18.42.050. The Planning Director may extend a TUP issued prior to the effective date of this Ordinance to be valid beyond 45 days.
D. Merchandise or Seating Layout Review
. A Layout Review is required to relocate some or
all of an retail establishment’s permitted indoor customer-accessible square footage to privately-owned areas on the retail establishment site not originally permitted for retail.
The Layout Review shall be conducted by a transportation planner, planner, and/or fire inspector who will review and either approve or require modifications to the proposed retail layout based on the following criteria:
1. The placement of the merchandise, displays, or other items does not create a safety risk and adequate pedestrian and vehicular separation is maintained, including with movable barriers as appropriate where outdoor seating is to be placed in parking lots or on-street parking spaces.
2. The layout accommodates appropriate vehicle and pedestrian circulation and maintains adequate paths of travel and complies with accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
3. Any tents must comply with fire codes and Palo Alto Fire Department issued standards for tents, and safety standards set forth by the National Fire Protection Association for fire-resistant tents and must include an affixed manufacturer’s label stating the tent meets NFPA requirements. A State Fire Marshal seal on the tent or a certificate is needed to prove treatment.
4. Any heaters must comply with fire codes.
5. An adequate and visible barrier is placed that clearly separates the retail area from the parking area and provides sufficient protection for patrons. Adequacy shall be defined in standards and guidelines issued by the Director of Planning.
6. Other requirements established in the standards and guidelines issued by the Director of Planning.
E. Fee
. No fee will be charged for submittal and review of the Application and for conducting a Layout Review.
F. No Architectural Review . Notwithstanding PAMC Sections 18.77.077 and 18.76.020, architectural review shall not be required for proposed outdoor retail areas or signage related to such areas during the effective period of this Ordinance.
12.b
Packet Pg. 152
NOT YET ADOPTED
249_20220427_ts24 7
SECTION 7. Compliance with Other Regulations, Orders and Approvals The
uses of public and private property allowed in this Ordinance shall be conducted in compliance with any applicable state or county mandate (including executive orders and health orders), this Ordinance, Resolution No. 9909 and its successors, and all other local and state regulations, orders, and approvals, as applicable (collectively, “Applicable Law”). Any approval, allowance or permit to conduct such temporary outdoor use(s) shall be subject to revocation by the issuing City official if the use is conducted in violation of Applicable Law, or poses a threat to public health, safety or welfare.
SE
CTION 8. No Vested Rights
Th
e outdoor uses of public and private property allowed in this Ordinance are temporary and shall be terminated upon the earlier of the date stated in the applicable permit/approval or the expiration of this interim Ordinance , unless earlier revoked by the City Manager or other authorized official (or their designee) or terminated by action of the City Council . The City may discontinue one or more, or all, of the allowed outdoor uses at any time if the City Manager or designee determines that the public health, safety or welfare warrant such action. Nothing in this Ordinance shall establish a vested right.
SE
CTION 9. Suspension of Prohibition on Alcohol Consumption in Lytton Plaza and Cogswell Plaza
No
twithstanding PAMC Sections 22.04.330 and 22.04.331, the City Manager is authorized to suspend the prohibition on consumption of alcoholic beverages in the parking lots adjacent to Lytton Plaza and Cogswell Plaza.
SE
CTION 10. Use of City Parking Lots for Reopening Activities A. Th
e City Manager, or his or her designee (“City Manager”), is authorized to permit outdoor dining, retail and other activities necessary to facilitate the reopening of businesses, in public parking lots owned by the City , subject to the City Manager’s adoption of rules, regulations, guidelines, and standards for such use (“Regulations”), and publication of such Regulations on the City’s website . Use of parking lots, or portions thereof, by a business shall require a license or other agreement, including an agreement to indemnify and hold harmless the City, and provision of insurance.
B. The
City Manager is authorized to waive any fee in the Municipal Fee Schedule associated with the temporary use of parking areas for the purposes identified in Section A above.
C. No
twithstanding PAMC Section 9.04.020, the City Manager is authorized to suspend the prohibition on consumption of alcoholic beverages in any City owned parking lot. //
12.b
Packet Pg. 153
NOT YET ADOPTED
249_20220427_ts24 8
SECTION 11. Personal Services, Indoor Recreation and Other Uses The
authorized outdoor uses of public and private spaces authorized in this Ordinance may be applied to personal services, indoor recreation and other uses. Prior to authorizing these additional activities to occur, the City Manager, or his or her designee (“City Manager”), shall adopt rules, regulations, guidelines, and standards for these uses, and publish them on the City’s website.
S
ECTION 12. Severability
I
f any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
S
ECTION 13. Environmental Review
T
he Council finds that the Ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (existing facilities) and 15304(e) (minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment).
S
ECTION 14. Effective Date
T
his Ordinance shall be effective 31 days after adoption and shall remain in effect until December 31, 2022 unless otherwise modified, repealed or extended by the City Council.
S
ECTION 15. Uncodified
T
his Ordinance shall not be codified.
//
//
//
//
//
//
12.b
Packet Pg. 154
NOT YET ADOPTED
249_20220427_ts24 9
SECTION 16. Supercedes Ordinance 5533.
As
of the effective date of this Ordinance, this Ordinance shall supercede Ordinance 5533, and any conflict shall be resolved in favor of this Ordinance.
INT
RODUCED:
PASSE
D:
AYE
S:
NOE
S:
ABSE
NT:
ABST
ENTIONS:
NO
T PARTICIPATING:
ATTE
ST:
_____________
_______________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APP
ROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
_____________
_______________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
_____________
_______________
Director of Public Works
_____________
_______________
Director of Planning & Development
Services
12.b
Packet Pg. 155
*NOT YET APPROVED*
250_20220427_ts24 1
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Continuing the Pilot Parklet Demonstration Program as Continued by Resolution 9992
R E C I T
A L S
A. In Ju
ne, 2020, t he City Council adopted Resolution 99 09 in response to COVID-19 and its effects on local businesses. Resolution 9909 created a Pilot Parklet Demonstration Program and also permitted the City Manager to temporarily close certain streets. At that time and since then, county and state regulations related to COVID -19 have limited or curtailed many indoor activities, including dining, bars, retail, and other recreational uses.
B. On Ju
ne 7, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 9962, which amended and restated Resolution 9909 on a non -emergency basis (among other changes).
C. On Oc
tober 18, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 9992, which amended and restated Resolution 9962 to continue the pilot program until June 30, 2022.
D. The
City Council now intends to extend the pilot program through December 31, 2022 through this Resolution.
E. This
Resolution, like its predecessors, implements a temporary parklet program authorized by Ordinance 5526 and its successor ordinances.
NOW T
HEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SEC
TION 1. Findings and Declarations . The Council hereby adopts the above Recitals as findings of the Council.
SEC
TION 2. Pilot Parklet Program and Design Requirements . The City Council hereby approves the temporary use of on-street parking spaces in Palo Alto for parklets under the Pilot Parklet Demonstration Program as first described Resolution 9909 and continued by its successor resolutions.
A. The
Director of Public Works /City Engineer , or his or her designee (the “Director”), is delegated the authority to exercise their discretion to approve specific parklet locations, plans, designs, materials, and standards, and amendments thereto , consistent with the Parklet Standards and Requirements. The plans and designs shall be signed by the
12.c
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment from 5/16/22 Meeting
*NOT YET APPROVED*
250_20220427_ts24 2
Director. Any existing parklet locations, plans, designs, materials, standards, and amendments to the Parklet Standards and Requirements approved by the Director under the authority of Resolution 9909 and/or its successors shall remain valid under the authority of this Resolution unless otherwise amended, rescinded, or modified in any other way.
B. The
Director is authorized to issue implementing guidelines and regulations for the Pilot Parklet Demonstration Program, and to approve amendments to the Parklet Standards and Requirements as the Director in his or her discretion deems necessary and proper. Any existing guidelines, regulations, or amendments issued by the Director under the authority of Resolution 9909 and/or its successors shall remain valid under the authority of this Resolution unless otherwise amended, rescinded, or modified in any other way.
C. A valid e
ncroachment permit issued under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.12.010 is required to operate a parklet under this Program. The Director may approve a parklet application through issuance of an Encroachment Permit , subject to the general regulations in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.12.010 and the following criteria and procedures:
1. Use. Parklets shall be restricted to outdoor eating areas of eating establishments.
2. Applic
ation and Review . A complete application for a parklet encroachment permit shall be reviewed by City staff for a determination as to whether such application complies with the Parklet Standards and Requirements. The application shall include all information necessary for a determination on the application including, but not limited to a certificate of insurance and a hold harmless and indemnity agreement in favor of the C ity shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.08.120. The Director shall grant or deny the application.
3. Condi
tions. Conditions of approval may be imposed on parklet encroachment permits to maintain the public health, safety and welfare.
4. Revo
cation. The Director may revoke a parklet encroachment permit if he or she determines that the conditions of the permit, the provisions of this Resolution, or any applicable regulation, ordinance, or provision of the Municipal Code are being violated, or if the municipal use of the
12.c
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment from 5/16/22 Meeting
*NOT YET APPROVED*
250_20220427_ts24 3
area is required for reasons of public health, safety, welfare or convenience. The permittee shall be notified of an intent to revoke the permit and shall be entitled to a hearing before the Director whose decision shall be final.
5. Ex
isting Permits. Any parklet encroachment permit issued under the authority of Resolution 9909 and/or its successors shall remain valid under the authority of this Resolution unless such a permit is otherwise amended, revoked, or modified in any other way.
SE
CTION 3. Rules and Regulations . In addition to the authority given to the Director of Public Works and his or her designee in Section 2 of this Resolution, the City Manager is authorized to enact any rule or regulation or implementing guidelines to effectuate and implement this Resolution.
SE
CTION 4. Compliance with Other Regulations, Orders and Approvals . The uses of public and private property allowed in this Resolution shall be conducted in compliance with any applicable state or county mandate (including executive orders and health orders), and all other local, county, and state regulations, orders, and approvals, as applicable (collectively, “Applicable Law”). Any approval, allowance or permit to conduct such temporary outdoor use(s) shall be subject to revocation by the issuing City official if the use is conducted in violation of Applicable Law, or poses a threat to public health, safety or welfare.
SE
CTION 5. No Vested Rights . The uses allowed in this Resolution are temporary and shall be terminated upon the earlier of the date stated in the applicable permit/approval or the expiration of this Resolution, unless earlier revoked by the City Manager or other authorized official (or their designee) or terminated by action of the City Council. The City may discontinue one or more, or all, of the allowed uses at any time if the City Manager or designee determines that the public health, safety or welfare warrant such action. Nothing in this Resolution shall establish a vested right.
SE
CTION 6. The Council finds that this Resolution is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (existing facilities) and 15304(e) (minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment).
SE
CTION 7. This Resolution supersedes Resolution 9992. Any conflict between this Resolution and Resolution 9992 shall be resolved in favor of this Resolution. //
//
//
12.c
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment from 5/16/22 Meeting
*NOT YET APPROVED*
250_20220427_ts24 4
SECTION 8. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon approval and shall remain in effect until December 31, 2022 unless otherwise modified, repealed or extended by the City Council.
I
NTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AY
ES:
N
OES:
AB
SENT:
AB
STENTIONS:
A
TTEST:
_______
___________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
AP
PROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
_______
___________________ _____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
_______
______________________
Director of Public Works
_______
______________________
Director of Planning and
Development Services
12.c
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment from 5/16/22 Meeting
Attachment C – Review of Peer City Parklet Standards
1 Review of peer city jurisdictions have provided an initial framework for the type and level of guidelines proposed for the City of Palo Alto. In general, most cities that have transitioned to permanent parklet programs do not have heavily prescriptive desi gn guidelines, focusing the majority of guidelines on standards for safety.
The table below summarizes the full table provided in Attachment XX which details the jurisdictions reviewed and their standards for key topics.
JURISDICTION PROGRAM
TYPE ENCLOSURE COVERINGS MATERIALS
Los Altos Pilot Program/
Recommended
guidelines for
when Public
Health orders
lift
Have edge buffers that
will enclose the space
on all sides, except the
sidewalk
Dining area will be
protected with 500-
pound wine barrels
maximum of 7.5 feet
apart
-- Natural materials are
strongly encouraged
Wood, stone, brick can
provide warmth at
storefronts and
enhance the feeling of
village scale and
character
Los Gatos Semi-
Permanent
Parklet
Program
Choice between three
(3) pre-approved railing
designs
Choice between three
(3) pre-approved shade
coverings: movable
umbrella, fabric sail
shade, retractable
fabric solar shade
Concrete planters,
concrete slab or
stamped and stained
concrete slab (brick-
like) or concrete with
red bricks to match
sidewalk
Tub steel frame railing
or custom brushed
stainless steel cable
railing or custom green
railing to match
streetscape, string
lights, fabric sail shade
or slide on wire fabric
solar shade,
Pleasanton Permanent
Program
Parklets must
incorporate a
continuous rigid barrier
from the platform to
the street (e.g.,
guardrails or another
barrier such as planters
and railings). Ropes and
other non-ridged
parklet delineation is
not permitted. It is the
applicant's
responsibility to ensure
structural integrity and
Temporary pop-up
tents/canopies and
temporary or
permanent roof
structures are not
permitted. However,
umbrellas are allowed.
Umbrellas must be
properly secured.
Umbrella colors are
limited to a solid
neutral color (i.e., no
stripes, dots, bright or
fluorescent colors,
Materials must be high
quality, durable, and
non-reflective.
The predominant
material/cladding on
the street facing side of
the parklet must be
wood or other natural
material.
12.d
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment from 5/16/22 Meeting
Attachment C – Review of Peer City Parklet Standards
2 safety of the
barrier/guardrail.
The barrier must
comply with the
California Building Code
for guardrails, this
includes but is not
limited to guardrail
minimum force,
guardrail gaps, and
height.
Barrier maximum
height is 48”.
Barrier should not be
one solid piece of
wood/metal. It must
include some visibility
to the street (e.g.,
railings with gaps).
etc.), cannot include
branding. Umbrella
colors are subject to
review by the Planning
Division.
Redwood City Temporary
Program
Temporary barriers not
exceeding three (3) feet
in height shall be placed
in a safe manner
around the Outdoor
Activity area
Tent Permit required
for tents or canopies
over 400 sq. ft.
Only one side of the
tent or canopy can be
closed at any given
time
--
San Mateo Permanent
Program
Must withstand 250 lbs
of force
Edge buffers: the
parklet should have an
edge as a buffer from
the street (can be
planters, railing,
cabling, or some other
closure)
Openings in rails must
prevent passage of 4-
inch sphere
Height of railings/
enclosures shall not
exceed 36 inches from
parklet platform floor
to the top of the railing.
If higher wind barriers
are desired,
Roofs, trellises, and
tent shade structures
will not be allowed
after April 30, 2022.
Platforms must be
constructed from
durable materials that
can withstand wear and
tear of elements.
Pouring concrete for
parklet platforms is not
allowed. You may use
concrete pavers on a
platform structure
instead.
Surface materials must
be textured or treated
with a non-skid coating
to ensure a safe walking
surface. Loose particles
such as sand or loose
stone, are not
permitted
12.d
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment from 5/16/22 Meeting
Attachment C – Review of Peer City Parklet Standards
3 transparent materials
are required and must
not extend more than 6
feet from the floor
platform.
Must have retro-
reflective reflectors or
retro-reflective tape on
the corners of the
parklet facing the travel
lane"
Walnut Creek Temporary
Program
Enclosures are clearly
defined using barriers
to help create a
comfortable and
separated space for
patrons
in the Pop-Up.
Heavyweight barriers
shall be placed no more
than 6 feet apart and
be no taller than 2 feet.
They must weigh a
minimum of 250
pounds each.
The most common
heavyweight barrier in
use are planters
Umbrellas are the only
type of covering or
canopy that are
allowed on a sidewalk,
sidewalk extension, or
City plaza, and are only
permitted if the City
has previously
approved the
Encroachment.
Heavyweight Barrier
options: concrete jersey
barrier, plastic traffic
barrier, granite or
concrete blocks,
parking stops, wood
barriers, planters.
Lightweight barriers:
Metal railing, plastic
netting, rope, lattice,
bamboo curtains, etc.
Surface treatments:
back floor mats, chalk
paint, chalk, astroturf,
sod, cornstarch paint.
The proposed standards (detailed above) aim to strike a balance between flexibility and consistency to allow for streamlined implementation and quality aesthetic.
12.d
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment from 5/16/22 Meeting
City of Palo Alto (ID # 14020)
City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: 5/23/2022 Report Type: Action Items
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Title: 1310 Bryant Street (Castilleja School Project) PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI JUDICIAL/LEGISLATIVE: Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Approval of Applications for (1) a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment to Increase Student Enroll ment Initially to 450 Students Followed by Phased Conditional Increases to 540 Students; (2) a Parking Adjustment to Enable On -Site Parking Reduction; (3) a Variance to Replace Campus Gross Floor Area; (4) Architectural Review of Campus Redevelopment. Addi tionally, (5) Adoption of a Zoning Text Amendment Exempting Some Below -Grade Parking Facilities from Gross Floor Area. Zone District: R -1(10,000). Environmental Review: Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Published July 30, 2020; Draft EIR Published J uly 15, 2019 From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Recommendation
Staff recommend that Council:
1. Adopt a resolution certifying the subject project’s environmental impact report (Attachment B);
2. Adopt an ordinance on first reading amending Title 18 to exempt certain below grade parking structures from the definition of gross floor area in low-density residential zones (Attachment C1 or C2); and,
3. Adopt a record of land use action approving a conditional use permit for a private school in the low -density residential zone; a variance to replace existing non -conforming floor area; architectural review for new academic buildings, site redesign and phased construction; and, a 14.4 percent parking adjustment (Attachment D) Executive Summary
The proposed project, in summary, includes phased demolitions and construction of a new academic building, subterranean garage and phased student enrollment increases. The existing fitness/athletic center and historic chapel/administration build ings will remain. To implement the project, the applicant must obtain Council approval of several planning entitlements:
architectural review, a variance, and conditional use permit. Additionally, responsive to the 13 Packet Pg. 163
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Council’s motion, a parking adjustment is requested. Staff also recommend that a zoning text amendment is required to effectuate earlier Council direction regarding the garage. The applicant (Castilleja School Foundation) filed an initial application to amend the school’s Conditional Use Permit i n 2016 and filed the Architectural Review application in 2019. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) met in 2020 and provided recommendations.
During Council’s March 2021 public hearings on the project, Cou ncil identified several significant project components for further study and refinement. The Council directed staff to explore a legislative amendment to the City’s zoning code that would allow some below grade parking to be exempt from gross floor area ba sed on certain criteria. The Council expressed its interest in seeing a reduction to the size of the underground parking garage; changes to the CUP conditions related to the transportation demand management plan and phased student enrollment increases; imp roved tree preservation efforts; and other changes. The Council remanded the project back to the ARB and PTC to review some of these issues.
The applicant returned in 2021 with parking options, a parking adjustment request, plan modifications and other s ubmittals to address Council directions. Applicant submittals in 2021 and 2022 are viewable on the Project Documents webpage. 1 Staff prepared documents per Council direction, including an existing gross floor area report, tree evaluation report and a draft ordinance, to support consideration of the remanded items.
The environmental impact report found all environmental impacts, including traffic and construction-related impacts, can be reasonably mitigated. The City’s environmental consultant prepared a m emorandum to document application changes and parking layout options submitted by the applicant in response to Council remanded actions. These site and parking layout options were found to further minimize environmental effects compared to the original project and Alternative 4 previously considered by the PTC, ARB and Council. Staff continues to support Parking Option E as most responsive to the Council’s March 2021 direction. The attached record of land use action has been updated to reflect this project refinement and updates to the conditions of approval and findings for the requested discretionary entitlements.
Background
The subject application was filed on June 30, 2016 and amended at various times to add or delete certain requests. There have been 21 public meetings before the architectural review board (ARB), historic resources board (HRB), planning and transportation commission (PTC), public arts commission, and City Council, collectively. There has been a significant amount of
1 Applicant submittal material: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development- Services/Current-Planning/Pending-and-Approved-Projects/Approved-Projects/Castilleja-School/Castilleja-School- Project-Documents
13 Packet Pg. 164
City of Palo Alto Page 3
resources dedicated to this project including time prior to the formal application from the City, community and Castilleja.
The School, which formed in 1907 and established at its current location since 1910, has seen a residential neighborhood grow up around it as it too sought to increase enrollment and construct new or refurbish buildings over the years. While there is great support for Castilleja’s mission and its modernization efforts, there remain stark differences in the community on issues like enrollment, the use o f an underground garage, the number of events that can be held and whether the school should be allowed to rebuild floor area that exceeds current code allowances. The City’s appointed board and commissions officials have offered differing perspectives on the project.
Castilleja has an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a private school in the R1 district, which was first approved in 1960 and amended over time. The more recent amendments occurred in 2000 and 2006. The CUP limits enrollment t o 415 students, regulates special events, includes requirements for a transportation demand management plan (TDM) and other operational conditions. The School has exceeded its authorized enrollment cap and through an agreement with the City, has been stead ily reducing its enrollment by four students a year. Academic enrollment for the current year is 422 students.
Over the course of three meetings on March 8, 2021 March 15, 2021 and March 29, 2021, the City Council considered the subject application and d irected staff to pursue a number of follow up actions. The applicant has also responded to the Council’s direction adjusting their site planning and refinements to the building’s architecture, particularly along Kellogg Avenue. A new parking layout and red uced below grade garage responsive to the Council’s direction has also resulted in enhanced tree protection measures , a key area of concern previously raised by community members as falling short of the City’s tree preservation interests.
There is an ext ensive amount of information in the administrative record for this project, the vast majority of which is online. 2 This report will focus on actions since the City Council’s last review and is largely organized around the Council’s motion. Links to prior r eports and other records are provided as appropriate. The supporting documents attached to this report reflect the actions of the City’s advisory boards and commissions except where noted, and where the staff recommendation differs, an explanation and options are provided to the City Council.
Additional background information leading up to the Council’s prior discussion in Spring 2021 is available online. 3,4 An updated project description summarizes the project before the City Council in Attachment A.
2 Castilleja project website: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/Hot-Topics/Castilleja-School 3 March 15, 2021 City Council Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas -minutes- reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2021/id-11180.pdf and summary minutes:
13 Packet Pg. 165
City of Palo Alto Page 4
City Council Motions from March 15, 2021 and March 29, 2021 The City Council made the following motions at its two public meetings from 2021:
March 15, 2021:
MOTION AS AMENDED: Vice Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Stone to direct Staff to:
A. Treat the underground parking facility as an underground garage and not as a basement;5
B. Return to Council with an alternative text change counting all the underground garage as floor area;6
i. Return to Council with an alternative of not counting flo or area or partially counting floor area; and
ii. Evaluate the implication of the text change on other properties in R -1 zones; and
C. Have an independent analysis of the existing floor area both above and below ground.7
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 4-3 Cormack, Filseth, Tanaka no
March 29, 2021:
MOTION AS AMENDED: Council Member Stone moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Burt to:
A. Allow an enrollment increase starting at 450 students; direct Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to id entify a procedure to allow Castilleja to further increase enrollment up to 540 students in phases, contingent on their verified compliance with objective standards demonstrating “no net new trips” resulting from the preceding enrollment limit, based on th e Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Plan Mitigation Measure 7a, and any additional TDM measures the City or Castilleja may find necessary to achieve the “no net new trips” condition of approval;
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas -minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council- agendas-minutes/2021/03-15-21-ccm-summary-minutes.pdf
4 March 29, 2021 City Council summary minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas- minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2021/03-29-21-ccm-summary-minutes.pdf 5 This action rejected an interpretation that the below grade parking facility was basement and therefore exempt from the definition of gross floor area under the current code. 6 This action provided some initial insight to Council’s direction on the below grade garage relative to it counting toward gross floor area and was later supplemented by Council’s direction on March 29, 2021 motion (item B). 7 This action is discussed later in the report.
13 Packet Pg. 166
City of Palo Alto Page 5
i. Strengthen existing TDM protections, reporting requirement s, and penalties for failure to meet conditions of approval. Penalties should include fees, suspension and reduction of enrollment and streamlining of corrective actions to violations;
ii. To review increases in the number of students as a percentage of the student population within bicycle distance and to further restrict student driving and parking on campus, including consideration of prohibiting driving by juniors;
iii. Evaluate a form of a TDM Oversight Committee; and iv. Consideration by Staff an d the PTC to allow reduction of required parking based on a TDM;
B. Direct Staff and the PTC to review an underground parking facility alternative that allows a maximum of 50 percent of the required on -site parking to be below grade without counting agai nst the project floor area.
No more than 50 percent of the required on -site parking may be located below grade;
i. Explore a Residential Parking Program (RPP) or alternative parking strategies for the surrounding neighborhood that prohibits RPP permits from being sold to Castilleja staff or students within the RPP district.
The school -side of the streets surrounding Castilleja (Emerson Street, Kellogg Avenue, Bryant Street) shall be exempt from the RPP so Castilleja can continue to park on those streets. Explore requiring Castilleja to cover the expense of implementing the neighborhood RPP; and
ii. Castilleja’s parking restrictions will be fully enforced. Explore having overflow parking located off -site and not located on residential streets; explore shu ttle services satellite lots to accommodate this parking need;
C. Direct Staff and Palo Alto’s Arborist to work with Castilleja to preserve as many protected trees to reduce the loss of protected trees, on campus as can reasonably be accommodated;
D. Evaluate phasing the construction of the new buildings to mitigate impacts associated with construction and evaluate elimination of the need for a temporary campus to be constructed on Spieker Field;
E. Remand the revised building proposal (including the reduction of 4,370 sq. ft.) to the Architectural Review Board to reconsider the massing and the compatibility of the design within the residential neighborhood context; F. Evaluate 50 percent of the public art expenses going to the Public Art Fund; G. Direct Staff to explore the legalities of having a maximum buildout; H. Direct Staff and the PTC to evaluate 5 major events, and between 50 and 70 special events with no Sunday events; and
13 Packet Pg. 167
City of Palo Alto Page 6
I. Direct Staff to provide information on Conditional Use Permi ts from other private schools in surrounding jurisdictions.
MOTION SPLIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING MOTION AS AMENDED PARTS A -E, G-I PASSED: 7 -0 MOTION AS AMENDED PART F PASSED: 4 -3 Cormack, Filseth, Tanaka no
Architectural Review Board8
The ARB met Decem ber 2, 2021 and March 17, 2022. The ARB reviewed parking options and related site plan changes, refinements to the Kellogg Avenue elevation and other design details.
The Board’s recommendations are summarized in the topic areas below as appropriate.
The most recent ARB staff reports summarize the applicant’s response to the City Council remanded items to the ARB.
Planning and Transportation Commission9
The PTC held a continued hearing over three days in December 2021 and January 2022 to provide prelimin ary comments on a variety of issues remanded by the City Council. The informal direction from the PTC included: 1) a request for staff to return with an alternative text amendment that would have broader applicability; and 2) a series of straw poll votes, summarized in the March 30, 2022 staff report on seven topics described in the December 8, 2021 PTC staff report. The PTC then held a second continued hearing over two days in March and April 2022 and provided a series of formal recommendations that are summarized in the discussion section below.
8 December 2, 2021 staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2021/arb-12.02-castilleja.pdf, and meeting minutes:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas -minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2022/arb-02.17.2022-minutes-12.02.2021.pdf March 17, 2022 staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2022/arb-03.17.2022-Casti.pdf, and meeting minutes:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas -minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2022/arb-04.21.2022-minutes-of-march-17-2022.pdf 9 December 8, 2021 staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas -minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2021/ptc-12.08-castilleja.pdf and meeting minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning- and-transportation-commission/2022/ptc-12.08.2022-minutes.pdf December 15, 2021 meeting minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2022/ptc-12.15.2021-summary_bc-and-bh- edits.pdf
January 19, 2022 meeting minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas -minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2022/ptc-1.19.2022-draft-bgh-revisions- upload-to-web-page.pdf
March 30, 2022 staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2022/ptc-03.30.2022-casti.pdf, meeting minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning- and-transportation-commission/2022/ptc-3.30.2022-summary-tracked-changes-af.pdf 13 Packet Pg. 168
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Discussion
The subject application has changed over the intervening years modified based on community feedback, environmental review, and board, commission and Council direction. The project previously considered by the City Council was an alternative project studied in the associated environmental analysis. This project alternative was also preferred by the applicant. For reference, this alternative is called the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative #4 in the environmental documents; it is also the environmentally superior alternative (that also meets project objectives).
Since the Council’s Spring 2021 meetings, additional changes have been made to the academic building with minor adjustments to si te layout and changes to the below grade parking garage.
These changes are reflected in revised architectural drawings and in parking option Concepts D and E in the applicant’s submittal. Concept E is supported by the ARB, 10 PTC and staff, and modifies the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative #4 project description.
Together these plans and documents represent the project that is being considered by the City Council. As discussed later in this report, the associated environmental analysis has sim ilarly been updated to reflect the project changes and concludes the revisions further lessen impacts due to less grading/excavation, fewer truck trips and less impacts to protected trees.
The balance of this report summarizes actions and responses taken by the applicant or boards or commissions in response to Council direction and how the issue is addressed in the attached documents. If there is a discrepancy between the staff recommendation and any recommendation from the ARB or PTC that is highlighted along with specific language that can be added in place of the staff recommendation. The topics below are generally organized in the same order as the March 29 th motion and ends with the one remaining topic not addressed from the March 15th motion related to a floor area analysis of the existing buildings.
1. Enrollment & Enrollment Increases
The applicant seeks to increase enrollment up to 540 students. Enrollment increases were initially proposed to be tied to construction phasing and implementation of transportation demand management measures including compliance with performance reports monitoring AM Peak and average daily trips (ADT). The City Council in its motion signaled its support to allow 450 students as a starting enrollment and directed the PT C to identify a procedure to allow a phased increase up to 540 students contingent upon verified compliance with objective standards.
The staff recommended conditions (Condition #4 and #22) incorporate this performance based review requiring verified comp liance with the no -new-trip standards over three consecutive monitoring reports. The conditions set forth the maximum average AM Peak of 383 trips (a
10 The ARB also supported Concept D and a “hybrid” plan that modified Concept E by increasing the size of the garage to match the design in Concept D.
13 Packet Pg. 169
City of Palo Alto Page 8
drop off counts at two trips) and a maximum ADT count of 1198 trips measured over the course of each repor ting period (August through November, December through March, and April through July). If there are no violations, enrollment may increase by 25 students each year. If one or more violations are observed over the preceding monitoring reports , there would be no increase allowed until three consecutive reports have no violations. If there are three consecutive violations, student enrollment must be reduced by at least five students in the following academic year. 11 For each violation to average AM Peak or ADT, more stringent TDM measures would be implemented.
PTC Recommendation: Limit enrollment to 450 students; require a CUP amendment for future enrollment increases with no increase allowed until after project construction. (Vote: 3 -2, Lauing, Summa, Chang for; Templeton, Hechtman against)
This PTC recommendation is not incorporated into the draft record of land use action for the principal reason that staff interpreted Council’s earlier discussion as conceptual support for a measured, phased enrollment sch edule to allow up to 540 students. If the City Council finds, however, that the staff recommended condition does not sufficiently address its concerns regarding a phased enrollment strategy, another option is to select the PTC’s recommendation to limit enr ollment to 450 students. Future enrollment increases would require a CUP amendment. Typically, a CUP amendment could occur administratively, however, given the extensive community interest in this project, staff would recommend a public hearing be held before the Commission to amend the CUP. Since the Commission is an advisory body, the recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council which may accept the PTC’s recommendation on consent or schedule a public hearing if pulled by three Councilmembers.
The PTC also suggested that there be no increase beyond 450 student enrollment until after construction has been completed. To implement the PTC recommendation, staff recommends the following motion be made by the City Council if taking action to approve the project:
Replace Condition #4 to read as follows: The School may enroll a maximum of 450 students. Following completion of the project and final occupancy approval of all structures, the School may request an amendment to the CUP to increase student e nrollment. Any student enrollment amendment shall require a public hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission in accordance with applicable provisions of PAMC 18.77.060.
2. Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
The Council directed staff and the PTC to strengthen existing TDM protections, reporting requirements, and penalties for failure to meet conditions of approval, including fee -based
11 This enforcement action does not impact enrolled students but limits the number of new students that may be admitted.
13 Packet Pg. 170
City of Palo Alto Page 9
penalties, enrollment suspension and reduction and streamlining of corrective actions to violations.
Based on staff’s review of the TDM plan, many of the Council’s interests were already incorporated into the draft plan and conditions of approval. The proposed TDM is more robust than any other previously approved plan. As discussed above, it includes a r equirement for no- net new increase in average AM Peak and ADT thresholds; it requires installation of permanent driveway counters and infrastructure improvements to support multi -modal access to the site; programmatic measures such as ridesharing for empl oyees and students, shuttle services, dedicated staff to manage and oversee the TDM program, notification and communication strategies, traffic and parking management solutions, and guaranteed ride home programs, among others. The plan includes a robust mo nitoring and reporting program. Three times a year Castilleja must demonstrate compliance with the no -net new trips criteria before it can increase student enrollment. The conditions of approval and municipal code provide that any violation of the TDM plan not cured within six months is subject to daily administrative penalties (fines). Moreover, the TDM plan provides opportunity for the City to impose even more aggressive TDM measures if the applicant consistently fails to achieve its average AM Peak and ADT trip targets. Examples of these additional TDM measures may include restrictions on student driving and parking on campus, increasing shuttle service offerings, and requiring an off-site parking facility.
The PTC in its review of the TDM plan offered s everal minor amendments to improve the clarity and ensure consistent language was used throughout the document. All of the PTC’s recommendations related to the TDM plan were unanimously supported by voting commissioners and incorporated into draft record of land use action.
3. TDM Oversight Committee
A new condition (Condition #33) has been added to the draft record of land use action to require an advisory TDM Oversight Committee. As proposed, the committee would consist of two Castilleja representatives and two community representatives with the resident members serving a two-year term. The Committee’s responsibilities are set forth in the condition.
The PTC unanimously supported a change to require both resident participants to be located within 500 fee t of the school instead of only one member as recommended by staff. This change is reflected in the draft record of land use action.
4. Underground Parking Facility, Parking Layout/Site Design Changes, Parking Reduction & Related Text Amendment
The below grade parking garage remains a controversial component of the project. The applicant proposed a garage to provide more on -site parking, reduce School -related intrusions into the surrounding neighborhood, to locate its support/service operations below grad e and 13 Packet Pg. 171
City of Palo Alto Page 10
reduce noise associated with all those activities. Neighbors opposed to the garage cite impacts to protected trees, excessive grading, disruptive construction hauling traffic, concern about groundwater withdrawal, and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the use of cement.
The underground garage was also controversial due to staff’s proposal that the zoning code could be interpreted to exempt the garage from the project’s overall gross floor area. This is relevant because the project site already exceeds the amount of floor area that would be allowed under the current code (gross floor area is discussed later in this report).
In March, the City Council rejected this interpretation, suggesting that the garage does in fact count as gross floor are a under the current code. However, the City Council directed staff to prepare a zoning text amendment that would allow some or all of the garage to be exempt from gross floor area. On March 29, the Council further refined this direction to include a compromise solution that would exempt the below grade garage from gross floor area if it were reduced in size. Accordingly, Council directed staff and the PTC to review an underground parking garage alternative that allows a maximum of 50 percent of the required on-site parking to be below grade without counting against the project’s gross floor area. The Council further emphasized that no more than 50 percent of the required on-site parking may be located below grade.
Staff understood these motions to direct preparation of a zoning code text amendment to allow this type of regulatory framework to exist and be applied to the project. The applicant has since disputed this assertion suggesting a text amendment is not required to approve the project.
Staff disagree s and believes that the project could not be approved, based on the Council’s application of the code, without the text amendment. This exchange between staff and the applicant is available online.12
Despite the foregoing, the applicant submitted four alte rnative parking design options. These are presented as Options A -E in the applicant’s plans included with this report. Options A -D were rejected outright by staff as either functionally not feasible or for exceeding the Council’s criterion that no more tha n 50% of the required parking spaces be located below grade. At staff’s request, a fifth option was presented and is referenced as Option E. This option includes a below grade garage that is aligned with the Council’s motion and adds more surface parking spaces. All options require a parking adjustment; Option E requires the greatest adjustment at
14.4% (15 spaces).
12 Staff summary response to Applicant’s January 12, 2022 letter asserting a text amendment is not required:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas -minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and- transportation-commission/2022/ptc-03.30.2022-casti.pdf#page=155 13 Packet Pg. 172
City of Palo Alto Page 11
The City Council contemplated a revised parking plan would likely require a parking adjustment and acknowledged this in its motion allowing f or a parking reduction based on a robust TDM plan. Staff believes the TDM plan is sufficient to address this parking reduction.
Option E includes a 24,294 square foot below grade garage (reduced from 32,480 square feet) with 52 parking spaces. Combined wi th 37 surface parking spaces, there are 89 parking spaces available on the School campus. 13 The project’s required parking is 104 spaces. As discussed later in this report, Option E also provides significantly more protections to existing trees.
The ARB and PTC both reviewed the parking options and supported Option E. However, the ARB actually preferred a hybrid approach that blended the below grade parking garage of Option D with 69 parking spaces and pool adjustment, ramp deletion, and the surface parkin g layout of Option E. The applicant also prefers this hybrid approach, which provides greater protections for existing trees compared to the project presented to the Council in March but less than what is provided for in Option E. Moreover, Option D and th e hybrid do not meet the Council’s direction to limit the below grade garage to no more than 50% of the required parking. Both Option D and the hybrid option have a parking reduction of about 9%.
Included with this staff report are two draft ordinances fo r the City Council’s consideration.
Attachment C1 represents staff’s initial approach to establish a legislative framework to exempt the below grade garage from gross floor area. Staff narrowly drafted this ordinance restricting its application to parcels greater than six acres, developed with non -residential uses and containing an historic resource. Based on these criteria the subject Castilleja site and 3233 Cowper Street (Our Lady of the Rosary) property were the only qualifying properties. The PTC did n ot support this narrow application and asked staff to broaden the criteria. Staff later presented options that removed the historic status and reduced the parcel size. A majority of the Commission still did not support this approach.
One commissioner recommended another option, but that motion failed. Despite not receiving PTC support, staff believes the alternative legislative approach has merit and included it as an option for the City Council’s consideration; this alternative is presented in Attachment C2 and is summarized below. In the end, however, the PTC was not able to coalesce around a recommendation to support any text amendment. Some commissioners rejected the notion of a tailored ordinance that essentially only applied to the subject property an d suggested the applicant address the issue through a variance. Staff recommend against adding the square
13 In its March 29, 2021 meeting, Councilmembers generally seemed to acknowledge an unofficial agreement between Castilleja and its neighbors that directed School-related parking on the sides of the streets nearest the school and the remainder street parking spaces were used by residents and their guests. There are approxi mately 54 street parking spaces adjacent to Castilleja. The Council suggested these on -street parking spaces could be considered in the evaluation of the parking reduction.
13 Packet Pg. 173
City of Palo Alto Page 12
footage associated with an underground parking facility to the variance request, as it would be difficult to support the required variance findings.14
With respect to the text amendment, both the original staff recommendation and the commissioner introduced alternative provide that below grade parking facilities may be exempted from gross floor area if they meet certain standards. For the alternative or dinance, the exemption may be granted with a conditional use permit provided it met the following criteria:
1. The parking facility is accessory to a non-residential use
2. It is located on a parcel that is two acres or greater;15
3. It does not provide more parki ng than specifically approved through a conditional use permit.
4. Specific findings are made in support of the parking facility when granting the CUP.
The new findings that would be required to support GFA -exemption of a below -grade parking facility are:
A. The size and capacity of the below-grade parking structure is appropriate to the context of the site and the proposed use.
B. The provision of on-site parking in a below-grade parking structure will enhance conditions on the site and in the surrounding community, including ease and safety of multi-modal transportation to and from the property.
A key distinction between the two ordinances is that one precisely limits applicability to sites that provide half or less of the required parking spaces below grade, the other ordinance is more open ended deferring to the decision -maker the appropriate threshold. In this particular instance, if the City Council favored the alternative ordinance, it could also decide that one of the other parking options (Options B, C, D, or the hybrid option contemplated by the ARB – including Option E) could be also be approved. With the more prescriptive ordinance, only Option E could be approved.
If the Council prefers the alternative ordinance, staff have prepared draft findings t o support a reduced size garage, and recommends the following action be included in the Council’s motion:
14 Notably, some members of the public have asserted that the draft variance finding s (without garage GFA) are insufficient, in part because they believe the School’s long history at the site is a “personal circumstances of the property owner,” which is expressly excluded from consideration by the code. To the contrary, the draft findings refer to the long history of the School at the site because it characterizes the parcel. The fact that the parcel has been in non-residential use for over a century is a relevant and appropriate consideration in granting a variance. 15 This would apply to 16 parcels in the R-1 zone.
13 Packet Pg. 174
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Amend the Record of Land Use Action to include the draft findings in Attachment C2, supporting exemption from GFA of a below -grade parking facility providing [Council to specify #] parking spaces.16
Another concern expressed by some commissioners was the potential loss of development impact fees if the below grade garage is exempted from gross floor area. Specifically, without the exemption, the project would be subject the following impact fees:
• General government
• Public safety facilities
• Community center
• Library
• Park
• Public art
Based on a net gross floor area increase of 14,636 square feet and the City’s current fee schedule, the School would be subject to approximately $300,000 in fees if the gross floor area is not exempt. The Council could choose to proceed with the floor area exemption but not exempt projects that take advantage of that provision to also pay applicable development impact fees.
If the Council chooses to enact one of the two ordinances to exempt qualifying projects with below grade parking from the definition of gross floor area but still require an applicant to pay applicable development impact fees, staff recommends the foll owing action be included in the Council’s motion:
Direct staff to amend the ordinance to state that the square footage of below - grade parking structures is excluded from gross floor area for purposes of development standards under Title 18 but included fo r purposes of calculating development impact fees under Title 16.
5. Residential Parking Program (RPP)
To address school -related parking intrusions into adjacent residential neighborhoods, the City Council directed staff to explore the possibility of a residential preferential parking (RPP) district that excludes Castilleja staff and students. The Council motion indicates that on -street parking
16 The draft findings for Option E would read as follows unless otherwise directed by Council:
1. The proposed below -grade parking structure provides 50% of the base, required on -site parking. This limits the size of the parking st ructure such that it will not encroach on the tree protection zones of any trees on the site and reduce the total volume of excavation for the parking structure. The limited capacity of the parking structure also requires that trips to the School will be distributed among several drop -off and pick-up zones on the site, consistent with the ‘disbursed circulation’ plan analyzed in the EIR.
2. With much drop -off and pick -up traffic routed through the underground parking garage, some vehicle circulation and parki ng will be located away from the neighborhood streets such that the school use can be more compatible with its residential neighbors. Bicycle and pedestrian circulation is located at the surface, separated from the below-grade vehicular activity.
13 Packet Pg. 175
City of Palo Alto Page 14
spaces on the school side of Emerson, Bryant and Kellogg would be exempt from the district, so Castilleja could continue to park at those locations. Moreover, if an RPP is formed, Council indicated an interest that Castilleja cover the cost of implementing the program.
The procedures to establish an RPP district are set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter
10.50.030 There have been no requests to initiate a district around Castilleja school. A survey in 2018 for the possible formation of a district that extended from Embarcadero Avenue to Oregon Expressway and between Middlefield Road and Alma Street received little support.
Since the outset of the subject application, staff has heard from some neighbors of their interest in an RPP district, but the support for such a program does not seem to be widespread.
While the City Council could initiate an RPP district, it seems an unlikely pursuit if there is insufficient neighborhood support.
There is a considerable amount of staff time needed to establish an RPP district including community outreach: initial petition, surveys, and public meetings; sign design, fabri cation and installation; and permit distribution. Other ongoing costs include annual permit orders and shipping, a parking enforcement officer and management oversight, and program management by the permit vendor and City staff. A rough estimate of one -time start -up and first year implementation costs for a hypothetical district is about $60K with estimated revenue collection less than $30K.
The PTC discussed this aspect of the Council’s motion but determined no action was required at this time citing exi sting procedures and opportunity for residents to initiate an RPP if interested.
As an alternative to a parking district, the City could also impose other time of day parking restrictions that would limit the number of Castilleja staff and students park ing in the neighborhood. However, such regulations would also impact area residents who would be required to ensure their vehicles similarly complied with any posted restrictions.
6. Satellite Parking
The Council expressed its expectation that Castilleja faculty, employees and students would not park in the residential neighborhood. Castilleja is expected to park its employees and students with on-site parking resources, street parking adjacent to the School and with reduced parking demand through aggressi ve implementation of the TDM plan. Castilleja currently leases 22 parking spaces as the First Presbyterian Church, within walking distance of the school, for employee parking. If the Council believes additional satellite parking may be necessary, it could consider adding the following additional condition in its motion:
Direct staff to add the following condition to the record of land use action: In the event the Director finds that school -related vehicles are regularly parking in the 13 Packet Pg. 176
City of Palo Alto Page 15
neighborhood beyond t he street frontages adjacent to the school, the Director may require that the School establish one or more satellite parking lots, with shuttle service if necessary.
7. Tree Preservation
The City Council directed staff and the City’s arborist to work with Castilleja to preserve as many protected trees as possible. Staff engaged an independent arborist to prepare a tree impact assessment. 17 With the recommended parking layout Option E , all but one protected tree (Tree 140) will be preserved or relocated onsite. Some of the relocated trees will be placed in different locations than previously proposed. Many protected trees have fewer or no encroachments into the tree protection zones due to a smaller below grade garage footprint, removal of the delivery/refuse/service ramp (Tree 155) and relocated swimming pool (Trees 87 and 89). Tree 140 is in poor condition and located at the foundation of the academic building.
The independent and City arborists concur removal is appropriate. Parking layout Option D also provides increased tree protection measures but less so than Option E or the hybrid version of Options D and E.
8. Construction Phasing
Included in the Council’s motion was a request to evaluate the project’s construction phasing schedule to mitigate constr uction-related impacts and evaluate elimination of the need for a temporary campus on Spieker Field. The project as proposed, with the temporary campus placed on Spieker Field, has a construction timeline of 34 months.
As a follow up to the Council’s mot ion, the applicant provided two other options. One option retains a temporary campus on -site, to be located at the campus Circle. The applicant reports this alternative would lengthen construction up to 58 months and require construction staging at the per imeter of the site. This approach to staging may potentially increase construction - related disturbances in the neighborhood. This option does not appear to meet the intent of the Council’s motion to mitigate construction-related impacts.
The applicant’s second option requires an off -site temporary campus and reduces overall construction time to 21 months. The applicant has not identified the location of an off -site campus, which would be required for environmental analysis. The shorter construction time may result in more frequent noise and other construction related disturbances for the neighborhood. However, some in the community may favor the shorter duration (13 months less construction compared to the proposed schedule) and, presumably, area residents would not also experience school -related vehicle trips at the same time there is construction traffic.
The ARB reviewed the three construction schedules and expressed support for the original 34
17 Dudek Tree Impact Assessment https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development- services/new-development-projects/1310-bryant-street/10056-updated-tree-impact-assessement-castilleja- school-11-12-21.pdf
13 Packet Pg. 177
City of Palo Alto Page 16
month schedule using Spieker Field. While the Board preferre d the shorter construction time schedule with the remote campus, it balanced the logistical challenges trying secure an off -site campus and the protracted time it would take to update the environmental impact report as reasons supporting the original plan.
9. Design Modifications
The City Council directed the ARB to reconsider the massing and compatibility of the academic building in context to the residential neighborhood. The applicant reduced the building floor area to address a floor area discrepancy discussed below, prepared a Kellogg Avenue façade study and discussed options with the ARB. At the conclusion of the Board’s deliberation, it supported the retention of most of the design features previously presented to the Council but with the incorporat ion of additional design elements, such as a new trellis and planter extension that serves to further break up the façade and create more distinction between different building forms.
10. Public Art
The City Council motion included a suggestion for the applicant that fifty percent (50%) of the public art expenses be directed toward the City’s public art fund. The City’s Public Art for Private Developments is regulated by Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.61.10 The regulations specify that the developer may choose to satisfy the requirement with a qualifying on-site installation or through payment of an in -lieu fee to the Palo Alto Public Arts Fund. In conversation with the applicant’s representative, there was no initial objection to this request.
The Public Art Commission recently reviewed conceptual public art plans. Subsequent meetings will include a budget review and determination as to whether the applicant will spend the whole budget on site or through a combination of art on -site and in -lieu pay ment. The Commission indicated the corner of Embarcadero Road and Bryant Street would be an appropriate location for public art given its high visibility. The Council was concerned that the public art for this project may not be very accessible to the publ ic, however, at this location, that concern may be mitigated.
As local regulation gives the property the option to pay into the public art fund or provide the art on -site, there is no condition of approval mandating a specific path to comply with this requirement.
11. Maximum Buildout
The Council directed staff to explore the legalities of having a “maximum buildout” for the Castilleja site. Staff were unable to determine a means to accomplish this goal primarily because the City Council today is unable to bind the actions of future City Councils. Any restrictions the City Council imposes at this time can be modified by the City Council at a later date, regardless of the mechanism used (e.g. condition of approval, zoning amendment, restrictive covenant). The Council could, however, direct that the Record of Land Use Action 13 Packet Pg. 178
City of Palo Alto Page 17
contain a statement conveying the Council’s present intent that the School not be further developed in a particular manner (e.g. floor area, enrollment, etc.).
12. Special Events
The City Council directed staff and the PTC to evaluate Castilleja’s special events and determine the appropriate number that should be allowed – establishing a range from 50 to 70, in addition to five major events. The Council also stipulated no Sunday events.
Castilleja previously requested 90 special events. Special events are defined in the attached record of land use action as activities with more than 50 attendees. There is a host of other restrictions including time of day, limitation on back to back ev ents, prohibition of amplified noise, etc. The PTC when it first reviewed the project recommended 74 events to the Council.
Based on the Council’s direction, staff asked the applicant to identify the types of events that would be removed if limited to 50 events.18 The PTC in its more recent review recommends the Council restrict the number of events to 50, plus five major events each calendar year. The PTC further recommends limiting the number of events after occurring 6pm from 32 to 16 and prohibiting events on no more than two consecutive evenings.
The attached record of land use action has been updated to reflect the PTC recommendation. If the Council would like to restore or increase the number of events, it may include the following in a motion in its approval of the project:
Direct staff to update the record of land use action to amend Condition # 6 to limit the maximum number of events in a calendar year to 70 with no more than 32 of those events occurring after 6pm.
Sunday events are already prohibited.
Commissioners supporting increased restrictions expressed concern about the number of events relative to the number of days in an academic calendar and thought the frequency was potentially too impactful. The dissenting perspective expressed con cern about the steep reduction from 90 events to 50 and its impact to students.
13. Research on Private Schools in Surrounding Jurisdictions Council directed staff to provide information on Conditional Use Permits from other private schools in surroundin g jurisdictions. Staff prepared a table with some information about
18 Applicant identified events that would be eliminated if special events are reduced to 50:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-services/file- migration/castilleja/2021/15.pdf#page=2
13 Packet Pg. 179
City of Palo Alto Page 18
multiple high schools around the bay area and shared this with the PTC in the March 30, 2022 staff report.19
14. Floor Area Evaluation (from March 15th Motion)
Castilleja exceeds the amou nt of gross floor area permitted in the R -1 (single family) zoning district. The School was established before current zoning restrictions were in place; also, the City allowed the School to expand its campus in the past through the City’s conditional use permit process. Based on the current language in the municipal code, staff do not believe the CUP process provides the authority needed to grant an increase or even replacement of existing gross floor area beyond what is allowed by right in the zoning dis trict. Moreover, in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.70,100, 20 when building GFA that exceeds permitted allowances is removed (demolished), that floor area may not be restored.
The applicant, however, seeks to demolish its existing academic buildings and other structures and rebuild them in a new configuration. It is the applicant’s intent not to increase campus GFA beyond what existed at the time of application filing.
Leading up to the City Council’s March 8, 2021 public hearing, staf f learned of a discrepancy in the size of one of the existing campus buildings; more GFA was attributed to an existing building than should have counted. Specifically, 7,000 square feet of exempt below grade floor area was incorrectly included in the total existing gross floor area count. However, the applicant had also undercounted existing gross floor area in another portion of the building reducing this discrepancy to 4,370 square feet of gross floor area.21
Due to the confusion regarding GFA, the City Council directed staff to prepare an independent (third party) analysis of the project site’s existing and proposed building areas, including basement space. Staff engaged a subconsultant to the City’s environmental consultant to prepare this analysis. 22 The study was prepared using a laser measurement tool and provides a greater level of precision than previously existed. Some assumptions were made regarding wall thickness, but in general, the results are the best possible calculation of existing floor area . This data was then evaluated to the existing code, which defines floor area that is included and excluded from GFA calculations, including volumetric spaces exceeding 17 feet and 26 feet in height. A 1993 code change for GFA required double and triple co unting of this volumetric floor
19 Information on other Bay Area schools: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2022/ptc-03.30.2022-casti.pdf#page=157 20 PAMC 18.70.100 link: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0 -0-0- 81658#JD_18.70.100
21 More information on this floor area discrepancy was provided in a March 8, 2021 memorandum to Coun cil:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas -minutes-reports/at-places-memo/03-08-21-agenda- item-7-at-places-memo.pdf
22 City’s consultant report on existing gross floor area https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning- amp-development-services/new-development-projects/1310-bryant-street/castilleja-school-building-survey-and- gfa-111721.pdf
13 Packet Pg. 180
City of Palo Alto Page 19
area, also known as second and third floor level equivalences, toward GFA. This was intended to recognize the impact of these spaces on overall building mass. It is clear these volumetric requirements were not considered in previous campus renovations and are not reflected in the applicant’s architectural plans.
The applicant’s most recent project plans show an existing campus GFA calculation of 109,297 square feet (SF), which is down from 116,297 SF previously presented to Council. This reduction accounts for corrected discrepancies and applicant -initiated floor plan adjustments. These numbers were provided by the applicant.
The City’s independent consultant analysis concludes the actual existing campus has 114,819 GFA, not including volumetric gross floor area, which adds another 23,526 SF from the gym (17,346 SF) and fine arts building (6,180 SF). Accordingly, Castilleja’s total existing campus GFA, based on current code definitions and using enhanced measurement techniques is 138,345 SF.
Staff’s evaluation of the consultant’s analysis and the applicant’s project plans concludes that the discrepancy between the two data sets is mostly due to the omission of the volumetric floor area. The balance of the discrepancy is assi gned to the applicant’s use of decades old permit records to report the existing GFA. This was a less precise way to measure GFA than the readings provided by the laser measurement tool to determine existing built conditions.
Based on the foregoing analy sis and after reviewing the most recent architectural plans to current code, the applicant proposes the following:
Campus Building Existing GFA Demolished GFA Proposed GFA23 Arrillaga Campus Center 37,179 37,179 0
Administration, Chapel, Theater 17,754 0 17,754
Gymnasium 33,513 0 33,513
Leonard Ely Arts Building 12,360 12,360 0
Maintenance Building 2,863 2,863 0
Pool Equipment Building 884 884 0
Rhoades Hall 33,793 33,793 0
New Academic Building 0 0 77,420
TOTAL 138,345 87,079 128,687
TOTAL (Not Including Volumetric
Area)
114,819 80,899 111,341
Accordingly, staff concludes that the proposed project replaces less GFA than currently exists today.
15. Recent Adjustments to Conditions of Approval
23 Includes existing to remain (not demolished).
13 Packet Pg. 181
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Following ARB and PTC recommendations on the draft conditions of approval for the project, the applicant provided a number of comments and requested modifications. Concurrently, staff conducted its own review of the conditions to ensure consistency and clarity. As a result, there are some minor adjustmen ts in the attached record of land use action compared to the conditions as they appeared in the most recent ARB and PTC reports. For example, the conditions now: more clearly distinguish “major events,” which may draw approximately 500 people, from other special events; clarify that driveway counters must be installed by November 2022; better align timeframes for TDM monitoring reports with the School’s academic calendar; and clarify that project revisions only need to be reviewed by the project arborist or landscape architect when directed by Urban Forestry staff.
The applicant also requested a number of more substantive changes, which staff determined were not justified in light of Council and ARB/PTC direction. The applicant was advised to present substantive changes to the City Council.
Policy Implications
Castilleja is a nationally ranked all girls private school located within a residential neighborhood.
The School and neighborhood evolved over time and now school administrators seek to modernize the campus and expand student enrollment. As with any destination facility within a residential neighborhood, localized impacts from vehicle trips, noise and related disturbances can be anticipated even if they do not rise to a level of significance under sta te environmental laws. The School and neighborhood, and to some degree the community at large, have made arguments for and against the proposed project. There is no perfect solution or list of conditions or findings of fact that will appease all parties. I mportantly though, this project requires resolution. The School needs to know to what extent it can modernize and expand its enrollment. Residents who have championed many of the changes reflected in the current project, also need closure and some degree o f certainty as to what it can expect living next to this campus.
There remains a significant amount of work ahead whether the project is approved or denied. If approved as drafted, staff resources will be needed to implement, monitor, report and enforce the conditions of approval. Castilleja will largely be responsible for this expense but it will also require City resources that will need to be diverted at times from other work. If denied, the existing CUP will still require amendment and public hearings before the PTC and ultimately City Council because the existing condition regulating special events is unclear.
The PTC often invokes the expression attributed to Voltaire and similar iterations by other philosophers about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. While the suite of conditions and regulatory oversight imposed by this entitlement is not perfect in the minds of some members of the community , it provides a path forward for Castilleja to demonstrate that it can be a responsible neighb or and presents the School with a precedent setting opportunity to operationalize an even more robust TMD plan that minimizes disruptions to the surrounding residential neighborhood. And, should Castilleja fall short of that goal and impacts are 13 Packet Pg. 182
City of Palo Alto Page 21
observed, there are plenty of mechanisms to course correct and address those concerns administratively or through public hearings.
Resource Impact
The are no signifcant budget or fiscal impacts associated with the processing of this application, which is paid for b y the applicant, including associated consultant costs. If approved, the City would receive limited, discrete deposits to fund ongoing enforcement and for the installation of vehicle trip counters on the public right of way. The City would also collect per mit fees to recover the costs of the building permit and inspection services.
Stakeholder Engagement
City staff have an extensive contact list through the City’s website that includes a project page where subscribers have received notifications for heari ngs and newly posted documents, and other updates. The project website is:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/default.asp. In addition, staff h ave responded to community inquires, participated in meetings with area residents and the applicant team as needed or requested.
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of the City Council public hearing was published in the Daily Post on May 13, 2022, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Notice cards were sent on May 10, 2022, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting.
Environmental Analysis
As the Lead Agency pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21067, the City, in compliance with CEQA, prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to provide an assessment of th e potential environmental consequences of approving the Project. 24 The “Draft EIR” was circulated for public review from July 17, 2019, through September 16, 2019. During the Draft EIR public comment period, two public hearings were held allowing public te stimony on the Draft EIR: (1) the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) hearing of August 14, 2019; and (2) the Historic Resources Board (HRB) hearing of September 12, 2019. The Draft EIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of the Project’s potentially significant effects to a less -than significant level; one unmitigated impact (the TIRE impact on Emerson Street) was due to the Project’s creation of one student drop -off location within a proposed underground parking facility. The Ci ty of Palo Alto considered the comments received during the Draft EIR public review period and prepared responses to comments.
24 Project related environmental documents: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and- Development-Services/Castilleja-Environmental-Documents 13 Packet Pg. 183
City of Palo Alto Page 22
An alternatives analysis was completed and included in the Final EIR. The alternatives included these alternatives – and summaries, analysis and feasibility of the alternatives are provided in Attachment A.
• Six alternatives preliminarily considered but rejected from detailed analysis because they were incapable of meeting most of the basic project objectives, would not reduce or a void any of the project’s significant effects, and/or would require speculation to evaluate. These include: offsite alternative – relocate full campus, partial offsite alternative (relocate a portion of the student body and staff to a new second campus), other offsite options (relocate sports and special events to other locations), surface parking, modified circulation routes, and minimum enrollment increase. • Detailed analysis of three project alternatives: the No Project Alternative (as required by CEQA), the Moderate Enrollment Increase Alternative, and the Moderate Enrollment Increase with Reduced Parking Alternative.
• In response to comments received on the Draft EIR, the Final EIR evaluated the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative, which has replaced the proposed project.
• The Final EIR also considered the one additional alternative – the No Garage Alternative – and provided additional discussion of the alternatives that were preliminarily considered in the Draft EIR but rejected from deta iled analysis as described above.
These included consideration of various alternative enrollment caps, creating a split campus or a second campus, and relocating the school.
In February 2020, the Applicant submitted a Project Alternative, the “Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative”, intending to address the Emerson TIRE impact and other community concerns voiced during the Draft EIR comment period. The City considered the comments received during the Draft EIR public review period and prepared a Final EIR. The Final EIR also analyzed the Applicant’s Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Project Alternative (EIR Alternative #4), and further analyzed or discussed other previously identified alternatives. The Final EIR, which identified Project Alt ernative #4 as fully mitigated, was published July 30, 2020. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City provided notice of availability of the Final EIR.
Public hearings before the ARB, Historic Review Board, and PTC were held to consider the Final EIR and various discretionary applications on August 20, August 26, September 9, September 24, October 1, October 28, November 4, November 5, and November 18, 2020.
The mitigation measures listed in conjunction with each of the project findings, as implemented through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MM RP), will eliminate or reduce to a less than significant level all adverse environmental impacts of the Castilleja School Project – Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative. Taken together, the Final EIR, the mitigation 13 Packet Pg. 184
City of Palo Alto Page 23
measures, and the MM RP provide an adequate basis for approval of the Castilleja School Project – Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15091(a) , a specific finding is made for each impact and its associated mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are in the EIR and the MMRP. The topic areas where required mitigation measures address the impacts are:
• Land Use and Planning (Impacts 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3)
• Aesthetics (Impact 5-3)
• Cultural Resources (Impact 6-1)
• Transportation (Impacts 7-1, 7-4, 7-5, and 7-7)
• Noise (Impacts 8-1, 8-2, 8-3)
• Air Quality (Impacts 9-1, 9-3)
A comprehensive summary of the environmental impacts associated with the above topic s is included in Attachment B. For each impact, mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce the environmental impact to a level of insignificance. Attachment D includes the MMRP that details how these impacts will be mitigated.
The proposed project being considered by the City Council is the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative , as modified by parking layout Option E, and it is the environmentally superior project that also meets the project objectives. There are no significant unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project alternative.
Parking layout Options D and E were further studied by the City’s environmental consultant and found to lessen environmental impacts compared to Project Alternative 4, Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative. The consultant’s memorandum was previously presented to the PTC and is included with this report as Attachment E. Additionally, in response to public comments received subsequent to the Council’s public hearings , the City further analyzed potential environmental impacts associated with earthwork activities regarding the pool excavation. The City’s consultant, Dudek, prepared a memorandum, which is included with this report as Attachment F. The City’s consultant concluded:
o the 2017 Geotechnical report remains adequate for evaluating the projects’ environmental effects,
o current groundwater monitoring data shows groundwater levels are lower than they were in 2017,
o minor revisions to the EIR are warranted to accurately reflect the depth of excavation associated with the pool but no revisions to the impact analysis, conclusions, or mitigation measures are required because the EIR recognized the potential need for dewatering,
o EIR Mitigation Measure 12a appropriately requires a contingency plan for temporary dewatering in the event groundwater is encountered, and o Temporary dewatering would not adversely affect the groundwater basin levels or recharge.
13 Packet Pg. 185
City of Palo Alto Page 24
Each of the City Council appointed boards and commission forwarded recommendati ons to the City Council for certification of the Final EIR. Prior to taking action to approve the project, the City Council would need to adopt a resolution certifying the EIR and adopting the MMRP.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was publishe d in the Daily Post on May 13, 2022, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 10, 2022, which is 16 days in advance of the meeting.
Additionally, staff maintains an email list of individuals that have expressed an inte rest in the project.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, several public comments were received. The public comments to the ARB, PTC and City Council related to the upcoming hearings will be uploaded to this page: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Pending-and-Approved-Projects/Approved-Projects/Castilleja-School/Castilleja- School-Public-Comments. Recent public comments to the ARB are viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/architectural-review-board/2022/arb-03.11.2022-casti-public-comments.pdf Attachments:
• Attachment13.a: Attachment A: Project Description
• Attachment13.b: Attachment B: Resolution for 2022 CEQA • Attachment13.c: Attachment C1 - Ordinance Amending Title 18 (Zoning) of PAMC to Amend Gross Floor Area Definition for Low Density Residential Zones • Attachment13.d: Attachment C2 - Ordinance Amending Title 18 (Zoning) of PAMC to Amend Gross Floor Area Definition for low Density Residential Zone • Attachment13.e: Attachment D: RLUA Annotated to include changes from PTC and ARB in 2022
• Attachment13.f: Attachment D Exhibit: Casti Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
• Attachment13.g: Attachment E: CEQA Memorandum on Options D and E • Attachment13.h: Attachment F: Responsive Groundwater Memorandum 13 Packet Pg. 186
Attachment A
Project Description
(Council May 23, 2022)
Castilleja School is located on a 6.17-acre parcel in a residential district surrounded by single family homes. The project site is generally bounded by Embarcadero Road, Emerson Street, Kellogg Avenue and Bryant Street. The applicant proposes to demolish five campus buildings, including the Leonard Ely Fine Arts Center fronting Emerson Street, Classroom and Campus Center Buildings along Bryant Street and Kellogg Avenue, and the existing swimming pool. The existing Fitness and Athletic Center, historic Gunn Administration Building/Elizabeth Hughes Chapel will remain.
As discovered via laser measurements by the City’s CEQA consultant in 2021, t he floor area of all demolished buildings is 87,077 square feet, not including 12,985 square feet of exempt below grade floor area to be demolished. The existing basement floor area in two buildings to remain is 28,421 square feet. The applicant proposes to replace th e demolished buildings with a new academic building containing 77,420 square feet of above grade floor area and 50,936 square feet of below grade, exempt floor area. Overall the site currently has 138,344 square feet of gross floor area (including 23,526 square feet of volumetric floor area) and a floor area ratio of 0.51:1. This exceeds the 81,379 square feet allowed for a vacant 6.17-acre parcel with current zoning regulations (which enable .45 FAR for the first 5,000 square feet and .30 FAR for the remaining 263,765 square feet); the site is considered legally non-conforming for floor area.
The applicant proposes a new subterranean parking facility accessed from Bryant Street via the existing parking lot leading to a two-lane, one-way access ramp and one -way garage exit ramp to a driveway onto Emerson Street. The subterranean parking facility as reflected in parking and site layout Option E, provides 52 non- tandem spaces below grade, and a total of 37 surface spaces , with a request for 14.4% (15 space) parking adjustment. The proposed project is required to have 104 parking spaces in accordance with the City’s zoning code. A total of 140 bicycle parking spaces are provided, in excess of the 108 spaces required by the code. A below grade pedestrian passage is proposed from the parking facility to new campus building.
Vehicle access is distribute d to three drop off/pick up locations around the campus, including a reconstructed drop off lane at Kellogg Avenue. Service deliveries will occur at designated locations at surface lots; the refuse enclosures are also located at grade level.
The project preserves or relocates all but one protected tree (Tree 140) which is in poor condition and located at the foundation of the existing academic building.
Other improvements include a new below grade swimming pool with a sound (reduction) wall relocated near the fitness and athletic center, a reconstructed Circle in the center of campus, new landscaping and fences. With Option E, the sound wall continues along the parking lot accessed from Kellogg Avenue and features photo - voltaic panels.
Two homes adjacent t o Emerson Street and owned by Castilleja are not a part of the school’s redevelopment plans.
13.a
Packet Pg. 187
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1 0160077_20220512_AY16
RESOLUTION NO. ______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Castilleja School Project, Making Certain Findings Concerning Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Alternatives, and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
On _________, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“Ci ty Council”), in certifying the Final EIR for the Castilleja School Project and adopting the MMRP, finds, determines, and RESOLVES as follows:
R E C I T A L S
A. The Castilleja School Foundation (“Applicant”) has proposed the Castilleja School Project, which includes approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Variance , and
Architectural Review associated with a phased increase in enrollment to 540 students, demolition and redevelopment of several campus buildings, and construction of an underground parking garage (the “Project”).
B. Approval of the Project would constitute a project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related sta te and local
implementation guidelines promulgated thereunder (“CEQA”).
C. The City is the Lead Agency pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 as it has the principal responsibility to approve and regulate the Project.
D. The City, in compliance with CEQA, prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to provide an assessment
of the potential environmental consequences of approving the Project.
E. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) was circulated for public review from July 17, 2019, through September 16, 2019. During the Draft EIR public comment period, two public hearings were held allowing public testimony on the Draft EIR: (1) the Planning and Transport
ation Commission (PTC) hearing of August 14, 2019; and (2) the Historic Resources Board (HRB) hearing of September 12, 2019.
F. The Draft EIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of the Project’s potentially significant effects to a less‐than significant lev el; one unmitigated impact (the TIRE impact on Emerson Street) was due to the Project’s creation of one student drop‐off location within a proposed underground parking facility.
G. The City of Palo Alto considered the comments received during the Draft EIR public
13.b
Packet Pg. 188
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2 0160077_20220512_AY16
review period and prepared responses to comments.
H. In February 2020, the Applicant submitted a Project Alternative, the “Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative”, intending to address the Emerson TIRE impact and other community concerns voiced during the Draft EIR comment period.
I. The City considered the comments received during the Draft EIR public review period and
prepared a Final EIR. The Final EIR also analyzed the Applicant’s Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Project Alternative (EIR Alternative #4), and further analyzed or discussed other previously identified alternatives. The Final EIR, which identified Project Alternative #4 as fully mitigated, was published July 30, 2020. In accordance with the California Environment al Quality Act (CEQA), the City provided notice of availability of the Final EIR.
J. The City conducted hearings before the Architectural Review Board, Historic Review Board, and Planning and Transportation to consider the Final EIR and various discretionary applications on August 20, August 26, September 9, September 24, October 1, October 28, November 4, and November 5, 2020.
K. The Council considered the Final EIR and
discretionary applications on March 8, 15, and
29, 2021 but Council remanded the project to the Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commission on March 29, 2021. Council directed staff to return with an ordinance to exemp
t a below‐grade non‐residential garage from gross floor area if it contains no more than 50% of the code‐required parking spaces for the use, to reduce below grade parking to 50% of the code‐required parking spaces, and to address additional direction; Council is the decision‐making body for approval of the proposed Project.
L. The Architectural Review Board met twice aft
er Council’s March 29, 2021 direction,
focusing on parking options and building revisions responsive to Council direction; the ARB supported building changes and parking changes on December 2, 2021 and March 17, 2022, wi
th a recommendation for hybrid designs.
M. The Planning and Transportation Commission met five times after Council’s March 29, 2021 direction, on December 8, 2021, December 15, 2021, January 19, 2022, March 30, 2022 and April 20, 2022, focusing on staff and the applicant’s responses to Council direction along with
components within its purview including the Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Parking Adjustment.
N. CEQA requires that in connection with approval of a project for which an environmental impact report has been prepared that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project, the decision‐making body of a public agency make certain findings regarding those significant effects on the environment identified in the environmental impact report.
13.b
Packet Pg. 189
*NOT YET APPROVED*
3 0160077_20220512_AY16
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Certification and Statements of Findings
The City Council, in the exercise of its independent judgment, makes and adopts the following findings in addition to those contained in Exhibit A, “Castilleja School Project Statement of Findings,” dated May 2022, which is incorporated by reference as though included in the body of this Resolution. These findings comply with the requirements of CEQA, including Sections 15091, 15092, and
15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, and are based upon the entire record of proceedings for the Project. All statements set forth in this Resolution and its Exhibits constitute formal findings of the City Council, including the statements set forth in this paragraph and in the recitals above.
(a) The Final EIR was presented to and reviewed by the City Council on March 8 and March 15, 2021. Due to the Coun
cil’s March 15 and 29, 2021 direction, revisions
to the project were developed and reviewed, along with memorandums regarding ‘Schemes D and E’ (aka Options D and E) and the pool excavation, with associated attachments (clarification
s regarding responsive changes).
(b) The Final EIR was prepared under the supervision of the City and reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City Council has reviewed the Final EIR, and bases the findings stated below on such review and other substantial evidence in
the record.
(c) The City finds that the Final EIR considers a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives, sufficient to foster informed decision making, public participation and a reasoned choice, in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
(d) The City Council hereby certifies th e Final EIR as complete, adequate and in full compliance with CEQA and as providing an adequate basis for considering and acting upon the Castilleja School Project and makes the following specific findings with respect thereto. The City Council has considered evidence and arguments presented during consideration of the Project and the Final EIR. In determining whether the Project may have a significant impact on the environmen
t, and in adopting the findings set forth herein, the City Council certifies that it has complied with Public Resources Code sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21082.2.
(e) The City Council agrees with the characterization of the Fin al EIR with respect to all impacts initially identified as “less than significant” and finds that those impacts have been described accurately and are less than significant as so described in the Final EIR.
(f) The descriptions of the impacts in these findings are summary statements.
Reference should be ma de to the Final EIR for a more complete description.
13.b
Packet Pg. 190
*NOT YET APPROVED*
4 0160077_20220512_AY16
SECTION 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(a) CEQA requires the lead agency approving a project to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the changes made to the project that it has adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. An MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption by the City Council conc urrently with the adoption of these findings to ensure compliance with standard project requirements incorporated as part of the project and mitigation measures during Project implementation. As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of the mitigation measures recommend
ed in the Final EIR. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period.
(b) The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP for the Project attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference, and finds, determines, and declares that the adoption of the MMRP will ensure enforcement and continued imposition of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR, and set forth in the MMRP, in order to mitigate or avoid significant impacts on the environment.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
__________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ _____________________________ Assistant City Attorn
ey City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Planning and
Development Services
13.b
Packet Pg. 191
EXHIBIT A
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings
SCH # 2017012052
May 2022
13.b
Packet Pg. 192
EXHIBIT A
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 1 May 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 1 I. Overview and Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 II. Statutory Requirements for Findings .............................................................................. 3 III. Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 4 IV. Project Background ........................................................................................................ 5 V. Project Objectives and Description ................................................................................. 6 Project Objectives ............................................................................................... 6 Project Description .............................................................................................. 6 VI. Record of Proceedings ................................................................................................... 7 VII. List of Impacts of the Proposed Project Determined to be Less than Significant or No Impact without Implementation of Mitigation Measures ............................................. 8 Impacts Evaluated in the Draft EIR ..................................................................... 8 Impacts Evaluated in the Initial Study ................................................................. 10 VIII. Findings for Significant and Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant With Implementation of Mitigation Measures ..........................................13 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................14 Aesthetics ..........................................................................................................16 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 16 Transportation ....................................................................................................17 Noise .................................................................................................................19 Air Quality ..........................................................................................................21 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................. 22 IX. Project Alternatives Findings .........................................................................................22 Reasonable Range of Project Alternatives .........................................................23 Feasibility of Project Alternatives .......................................................................24 Analysis of Project Alternatives ..........................................................................24 X. Growth Inducement Findings .........................................................................................27 XII. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................28
13.b
Packet Pg. 193
EXHIBIT A
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 1 May 2022
I. O VERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION
This Statement of Findings is made with respect to approval of the Castilleja School Project and states the findings of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (City Council) relating to the potentially significant environmental effects of the project. This Statement of Findings addresses the environmental effects associated with the proposed Castilleja School Project, located on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 124-12- 034 (at 1310 Bryant Street), 124-12-031 (1235 Emerson Street), and 124-12-033 (1263 Emerson Street).
The City Council, in the exercise of its independent judgment, makes and adopts the following findings to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, sections 21000 et seq.), and Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs., sections 15000 et seq.). All statements set forth in this Resolution constitute formal findings of the City Council, including the statements set forth in this paragraph.
These findings are made relative to the conclusions of the City of Palo Alto Castilleja School Project Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2017012052) (Final EIR), which includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), the EIR Errata (April 2022), and the Castilleja School Project – Environmental Effects of Scheme D and Scheme E Memorandum (March 2022). The Final EIR addresses the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Castilleja School Project (the Project, as further defined in Sections IV and V below) and is incorporated herein by reference. The original Project proposal was defined in Draft EIR Chapter 3, Project Description; but the Project addressed in these Findings is the Modified Dispersed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E. The original Dispersed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative (also referred to as Project Alternative 4) is described in Final EIR Chapter 2, Master Responses, Master Response 4. The Scheme E modifications made to this alternative are shown in the document titled Updated Garage Studies with Scheme E (November 2021). The project requests that the City take the following actions:
1. Certify an Environmental Impact Report and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
2. Approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment.
3. Approve a Variance to maintain existing above grade Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR).
4. Approve Architectural Review , Grading Permits, Tree Removal Permits, and Building Permits (phased development approval(s)).
Approval of the requested entitlements constitutes the project for purposes of CEQA and these determinations of the City Council. These findings are based upon the entire record of proceedings for the Project. The City Council finds as follows:
1. The record of proceedings in Section VI of these findings are correct and accurate.
2. The Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Environmental Impact Ordinance, codified in Title 11 of the City’s Municipal Code.
3. The Draft EIR was presented to and reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on August 14, 2019.
13.b
Packet Pg. 194
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 2 May 2022
4. The Final EIR was presented to and reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) (August 20, 2020,) HRB (September 24, 2020), and PTC (August 26 and September 9, 2020). The ARB, HRB, and PTC each provided a recommendation to the City Council in support of certification of the Final EIR.
5. The Final EIR was presented to and reviewed by the City Council on March 8, March 15, and March 29, 2021.
6. Following the public hearings for the project and the EIR in 2020 and March of 2021, the project design was modified to respond to City Council direction. The project designs presented to the City Council in 2022 include ‘Scheme D,’ ‘Scheme E,’ and “Hybrid Scheme D/E.’ The Castilleja School Project – Environmental Effects of Scheme D and Scheme E Memorandum (March 2022) provides analysis of the potential differences in environmental effects associated with Schemes D and E compared to the conclusions of the Final EIR regarding the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative (Project Alternative 4) and concludes that neither Scheme D nor Scheme E would increase the adverse environmental impacts of the project compared to Project Alternative 4 and all of the mitigation measures applicable to Project Alternative 4 would also be applicable to either Scheme D or Scheme E. It also concludes that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, recirculation of the EIR is not required because there is no “significant new information” that has been or should be added to the EIR.
7. The revised project plans and additional information was presented to and reviewed by the HRB (September 24, 2021), ARB (March 17, 2022) and PTC (March 30 and April 20, 2022). The HRB, ARB, and PTC each provided recommendations to the City Council regarding project design elements. As noted in item 4 above, each of these bodies made recommendations to the City Council regarding certification of the Final EIR in 2020. Because none of the additional project alternatives that have been evaluated would result in new significant impacts or would increase the severity of the environmental impacts identified in the EIR, no further recommendations regarding EIR certification were warranted in September 2021 and March and April 2022.
8. The Final EIR was prepared under the supervision of the City and reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City Council has reviewed the Final EIR, and bases the findings stated below on such review and other substantial evidence in the record.
9. The City finds that the Final EIR considers a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives, sufficient to foster informed decision making, public participation and a reasoned choice, in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
10. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR as complete, adequate and in full compliance with CEQA and as providing an adequate basis for considering and acting upon the Castilleja School Project and makes the following specific findings with respect thereto. The City Council has considered evidence and arguments presented during consideration of the Project and the Final EIR. In determining whether the Project may have a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting the findings set forth herein, the City Council certifies that it has complied with Public Resources Code sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21082.2.
11. The City Council agrees with the characterization of the Final EIR with respect to all impacts initially identified as “less than significant” and finds that those impacts have been described accurately and are less than significant as so described in the Final EIR. This finding does not apply to impacts identified as significant or potentially significant that are reduced to a less than
13.b
Packet Pg. 195
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 3 May 2022
significant level by mitigation measures included in the Final EIR. The disposition of each of those impacts and the mitigation measures adopted to reduce them are addressed specifically in the findings below.
12. All mitigation measures in the Final EIR are adopted and incorporated into the Castilleja School Project as described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), which includes all mitigation measures adopted with respect to the project and explains how and by whom they will be implemented and enforced.
13. The mitigation measures and the MMP have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the amended Conditional Use Permit and have thus become part of and limitations upon the entitlements conferred by the project approvals.
14. The descriptions of the impacts in these findings are summary statements. Reference should be made to the Final EIR for a more complete description.
15. The Planning and Community Environment Department is directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk within five (5) working days in accordance with CEQA section 21152(a) and CEQA Guidelines section 15094.
II. S TATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS
Significant effects of the Castilleja School Project were identified in the Draft EIR. CEQA section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091 require that the Lead Agency prepare written findings for identified significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. Less than significant effects (without mitigation) of the project were also identified in the Draft EIR and Initial Study; these are listed in Section VII below. CEQA does not require that the Lead Agency prepare written findings for less than significant effects.
CEQA requires that the Lead Agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur with implementation of the project. Project mitigation or alternatives are not required, however, where substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with another agency. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines section 15091 states:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
13.b
Packet Pg. 196
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 4 May 2022
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
The “changes or alterations” required or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of the project, as stated to in CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1) above, may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15370, including avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, or reducing the impact over time, or compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources.
III. D EFINITIONS
The following definitions apply where the subject words or acronyms are used in these findings:
“ARB” means the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. “BAAQMD” means the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. “City Council” means the City of Palo Alto City Council. “CEQA” means the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code section 21000 et seq.).
“City” means the City of Palo Alto.
“Comprehensive Plan” means the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as adopted in 2017 with subsequent amendments.
“Condition” means a Condition of Approval adopted by the City in connection with approval of the project.
“CUP” means Conditional Use Permit.
“Draft EIR” means the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated July 2019 for the proposed Castilleja School Project.
“EIR” means environmental impact report.
“Environmental Impact Ordinance” means the City of Palo Alto Environmental Impact Ordinance, as codified in Title 11 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. “FAR” means Floor-Area-Ratio as defined in the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. “Final EIR” means the Final EIR as prepared for the project (which includes the NOP and Initial Study dated January 2017, the Draft EIR dated July 2019, and the Final EIR dated July 2020).
“HRB” means the City of Palo Alto Historic Resources Board. “MMP” means the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. “Municipal Code” means the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, including all amendments thereto. “NOP” means Notice of Preparation of an EIR.
“PTC” means the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission.
13.b
Packet Pg. 197
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 5 May 2022
“PCE” means the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department. “Project” means the proposed Castilleja School Project, Modified Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E.
“TDM” means Transportation Demand Management.
“TIRE” means the Traffic Infusion in Residential Environments Index. “Tree Preservation and Management Regulations” means the City of Palo Alto Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, as defined in Municipal Code Chapter 8.10. “Zoning Ordinance” means the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, including all amendments thereto.
IV. P ROJECT BACKGROUND
Castilleja School Foundation (the project applicant) requested approval of an amendment to the school’s existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to increase student enrollment at the campus, architectural review of a phased campus modification plan (referred to by the applicant as the Master Plan); a Tentative Map with Exception to merge two small parcels containing dwelling units with the larger parcel; a variance for below-grade setback encroachments related to the proposed underground parking structure; and a variance to maintain the existing floor-area-ratio by rebuilding 84,124 square feet above grade in a different configuration.
The Draft EIR evaluated the originally proposed project and found that it would result in three significant and unavoidable impacts. One of those significant and unavoidable impacts was associated with the level of service at a particular roadway intersection. As discussed in the Final EIR, since the time that the Draft EIR was prepared, changes in the CEQA Statute and CEQA Guidelines now preclude reliance on measurements of automobile delay, such as the changes in intersection level of service, identifying environmental impacts. Specifically, pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 21099(b)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, “a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” Thus, one of the three significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Draft EIR is no longer considered an environmental effect of the project.
Castilleja School Foundation submitted a project alternative that would avoid the two remaining significant and unavoidable impacts (which were both related to the project’s increase in daily traffic volumes on adjacent neighborhood streets, as measured by the Traffic Infusion in Residential Environments [TIRE]
Index) and would better address community concerns . This Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative (Project Alternative 4) was presented to the City Council as the preferred project design in March 2021. The Final EIR found that Project Alternative 4 would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts.
Following public hearings in 2020 and March 2021, Castilleja School Foundation prepare a series of potential revisions to the project design as presented in the Updated Garage Studies with Scheme E (November 2021). Of the set of revised project designs, these Findings address t he Modified Dispersed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E.
13.b
Packet Pg. 198
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 6 May 2022
V. P ROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION
Project Objectives
The Project Objectives of the project applicant are set forth in Draft EIR sections 1.3, 3.3, and 13.2, which is incorporated herein by reference. The Project Objectives listed herein are revised to reflect the site design presented in the Modified Dispersed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E. The project objectives include the following:
1. Maintain a single integrated campus for the middle and upper school with new structures that integrate state-of-the-art technology and teaching practices and retain flexibility.
2. Achieve better architectural and aesthetic compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods through building design and landscaping.
3. Increase enrollment to 540 students to allow more young women the unique opportunity to receive an all-girls education.
4. Increase on-site parking and reduce both parking visibility and surface parking.
5. Improve vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access for students and staff.
6. Ensure no increase in vehicle trips to and from the campus during AM peak hours; reduce the number of service deliveries; and provide noise screening for delivery truck and solid waste/recycling truck activities to decrease nuisance effects to neighbors.
7. Improve the campus’s sustainability and energy efficiency.
8. Phase construction to allow continued operation of Castilleja School during construction and to reduce impacts on the neighborhood.
Project Description
Under the Modified Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E, Castilleja School Foundation has requested an amendment of their existing CUP to increase the enrollment cap, and approval for building demolition, new building construction, and construction of a below-grade parking structure. Construction of proposed physical improvements would occur in four phases. These include constructing a below-grade parking structure, constructing a temporary campus, relocating the existing pool, and demolishing the existing Campus Center and classroom buildings and replacing them with a single Academic building. The project also includes implementation of an expanded Transportation Demand Management plan and a Sustainability Road Map.
The Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative as proposed by the project applicant is provided in Final EIR Master Response 4. Additional description of the Modified Dispersed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E is provided in the Castilleja School Project – Environmental Effects of Scheme D and Scheme E Memorandum (March 2022). Site plans of the proposed campus, including the parking garage, as well as technical data and information regarding this project alternative are shown in the following documents:
• Kellogg Modifications Study (February 4, 2022);
13.b
Packet Pg. 199
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 7 May 2022
• Updated Garage Studies with Scheme E (November 2021); • ARB Resubmission (November 2021); and
• At Grade Delivery Noise Report (September 2021).
VI. R ECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
In accordance with CEQA section 21167.6(e), the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the Castilleja School project includes, without limitation, the following documents:
♦ The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the project; ♦ All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment period on the NOP (provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR);
♦ The Draft EIR (July 2019) for the project;
♦ All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment period on the Draft EIR;
♦ All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the Project, in addition to timely comments on the Draft EIR;
♦ The Final EIR (July 2020) for the project, including comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments;
♦ The Castilleja School Project – Environmental Effects of Scheme D and Scheme E Memorandum (March 2022)
♦ Documents cited or referenced in the Draft and Final EIRs and the Castilleja School Project – Environmental Effects of Scheme D and Scheme E Memorandum; ♦ The project MMP;
♦ All findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the project and all documents cited or referred to therein;
♦ All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the project;
♦ All documents submitted to the City (including the HRB, ARB, PTC, and City Council) by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the project; ♦ Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the project; ♦ Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings and public hearings;
♦ The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and all environmental documents prepared in connection with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan;
13.b
Packet Pg. 200
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 8 May 2022
♦ The City of Palo Alto Environmental Impact Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance (City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 11 and Title 18), and all other City Code provisions cited in materials prepared by or submitted to the City;
♦ Any and all resolutions and/or ordinances adopted by the City regarding the project, and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions; ♦ Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations;
♦ Any documents cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and ♦ Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by CEQA section 21167.6(e).
The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the project, even if not every document was formally presented to the City Council, PTC or City Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the project. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the project files fall into one of two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the City Council was aware in approving the Castilleja School Project. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392; Dominey v.
Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6.) Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to City staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City Council. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City Council’s decisions relating to approval of the Castilleja School Project. (See Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries c. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4 th 144, 153, 155.)
The official custodian of the record is the Planning and Community Environment Director, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301.
VII. L IST OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT DETERMINED TO BE LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT OR NO IMPACT WITHOUT IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION
MEASURES
The City Council agrees with the conclusions in the Final EIR with respect to all impacts initially identified as “no impact” or “less than significant” that do not require implementation of mitigation measures. This includes consideration of the project’s potential to have a significant contribution to cumulative impacts.
The impacts determined to be less than significant or no impact without implementation of mitigation measures include:
Impacts Evaluated in the Draft EIR
Land Use and Planning
Impact 4-4 Substantially contribute to cumulative land use impacts.
Aesthetics
Impact 5-1 S ubstantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
13.b
Packet Pg. 201
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 9 May 2022
Impact 5-2 S ubstantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks).
Impact 5-4 Substantially contribute to cumulative impacts to the visual character of the region.
Cultural Resources
Impact 6-2 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated ceme teries.
Impact 6-3 Contribute to a cumulative loss of cultural resources.
Transportation
Impact 7-2 Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
Impact 7-3 Result a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location resulting in substantial safety risks.
Impact 7-6 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
Noise
Impact 8-4 Expose people to noise levels that exceed established noise stan dards or generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in cumulative plus project conditions.
Air Quality
Impact 9-2 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Impact 9-4 Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 10-1 Generate greenh ouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Impact 10-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases.
Impact 10-3 Make a cumulatively considerable contribution to emissions of greenhouse gases in the cumulative scenario.
13.b
Packet Pg. 202
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 10 May 2022
Energy
Impact 11-1 Result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.
Impact 11-2 Conflict with existing energy standards and regulations.
Geology, Soils, Seismicity and Paleontology
Impact 12-3 Substantial erosion or loss of topsoil.
Impact 12-6 Substantially contribute to cumulative impacts associated with geology, seismicity, soils and paleontological resources.
Impacts Evaluated in the Initial Study
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Impact II.a Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non -agricultural use.
Impact II.b Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
Impact II.c Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)).
Impact II.d Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Impact II.e Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Biological Resources
Impact IV.b Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Impact IV.c Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Impact IV.d Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Impact IV.f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
13.b
Packet Pg. 203
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 11 May 2022
Geology and Soils
Impact VI.e Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact VIII.d Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Impact VIII.e For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
Impact VIII.f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, w ould the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
Impact VIII.h Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact IX.a Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Impact IX.b Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantial ly with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land use s or planned uses for which permits have been granted).
Impact IX.c Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
Impact IX.d Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site.
Impact IX.e Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
Impact IX.f Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
Impact IX.g Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.
13.b
Packet Pg. 204
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 12 May 2022
Impact IX.h Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.
Impact IX.i Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
Impact IX.j Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Land Use and Planning
Impact X.c Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
Mineral Resources
Impact XI.a Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.
Impact XI.b Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.
Noise
Impact XII.e For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Impact XII.f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Population and Housing
Impact XIII.a Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure.
Impact XIII.b Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Impact XIII.c Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Public Services
Impact XIV.a Would the project res ult in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection ; Police protection; Schools; Parks; Other public facilities.
13.b
Packet Pg. 205
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 13 May 2022
Recreation
Impact XV.a Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
Impact XV.b Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact XVIII.a Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Impact XVIII.b Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Impact XVIII.c Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Impact XVIII.d Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Impact XVIII.e Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Impact XVIII.f Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Impact XVIII.g Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? VIII. F INDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
REDUCED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION
MEASURES
The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all impacts initially identified as “significant” or “potentially significant” that are reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15091(a), a specific finding is made for each impact and its associated mitigation measures in the discussions below. Mitigation measures are summarized below and are presented in full in the EIR and the MMP, which are incorporated herein by reference. This section includes findings specific to the project’s potential to result in a significant contribution to cumulative impacts.
13.b
Packet Pg. 206
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 14 May 2022
Land Use and Planning
Impact 4-1: Conflict with land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Summary: As discussed in Final EIR Master Response 4 and the Castilleja School Project – Environmental Effects of Scheme D and Scheme E Memorandum, the Modified Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E would result in similar impacts as the originally proposed project that were evaluated in Draft EIR Impact 4-1. Specifically, the Modified Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E could result in conflicts with the City’s land use plans, policies, and regulations by increasing the intensity of the existing educational use through potential increases in special events; removing trees and reducing tree canopy in the project vicinity; potential increases in traffic associated with increased enrollment; and generating noise levels that could exceed the Municipal Code standards during project construction and during use of the pool.
Finding: Changes in the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR are required. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4a, 4b, 7a, 7b, 8a, and 8b will ensure that the potential for the project to result in new land use incompatibilities or exacerbate existing land use incompatibilities would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Explanation: These mitigation measures will substantially lessen the project’s environmental effects by establishing requirements for special events (Mitigation Measure 4a, which includes defining a maximum number of special events, identifying restrictions on event size and timing, and identifying requirements for parking, ensuring that the level of special event activity would be slightly less than currently occurs); requiring tree protection and replacement consistent with the City’s Tree Preservation and Management Regulations (Mitigation Measure 4b); identifying performance standards that must be attained through implementation of an enhanced TDM program (Mitigation Measure 7a); requiring vegetation management to ensure adequate lines of sight are maintained at site driveways (Mitigation Measure 7b), and establishing noise performance standards that must be met by the loudspeaker system at the pool and during construction (Mitigation Measures 8a and 8b).
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Impact 4-2: Create land use incompatibility or physically divide an established community Summary: As discussed in Final EIR Master Response 4 and the Castilleja School Project – Environmental Effects of Scheme D and Scheme E Memorandum, the Modified Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E would result in similar impacts as the originally proposed project that were evaluated in Draft EIR Impact 4-2. Specifically, the Modified Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E would result in a land use compatibility conflict due to the potential to exacerbate existing land use conflicts between the school and its residential neighborhood. The analysis identifies potentially
13.b
Packet Pg. 207
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 15 May 2022
significant impacts that would result from any increases in special events that could increase disturbance to neighbors and generating noise levels that could exceed the Municipal Code standards during project construction and from use of the pool.
Finding: Changes in the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR are required. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4a, 8a and 8b will ensure that the potential for the project to result in new land use incompatibilities or exacerbate existing land use incompatibilities would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Explanation: These mitigation measures will substantially lessen the project’s environmental effects by establishing requirements for special events (Mitigation Measure 4a, which includes defining a maximum number of special events, identifying restrictions on event size and timing, and identifying requirements for parking, ensuring that the level of special event activity would be slightly less than currently occurs), and establishing noise performance standards that must be met by the loudspeaker system at the pool and during construction (Mitigation Measures 8a and 8b).
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Impact 4-3: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Summary: As discussed in Final EIR Master Response 4 and the Castilleja School Project – Environmental Effects of Scheme D and Scheme E Memorandum, the Modified Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E would result in similar but slightly reduced impacts as the originally proposed project that were evaluated in Draft EIR Impact 4-3. Specifically, the Modified Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E would result in tree removal and encroachment of construction activities into tree protection zones but would decrease the amount of tree removal and encroachment into tree protection zones compared to the originally proposed project and the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative as described in the Final EIR.
Finding: Changes in the project to substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR are required. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4b will ensure that the potential for the project to result in significant tree loss would be reduced to a less-than- significant level.
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 4b will substantially lessen the project’s environmental effects associated with tree loss and adverse effects to retained trees by establishing requirements for tree protection during and after construction and tree replacement, consistent with the City’s Tree Preservation and Management Regulations and the City’s Tree Technical Manual.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
13.b
Packet Pg. 208
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 16 May 2022
Aesthetics
Impact 5-3: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Summary: As discussed in Master Response 4 and in Draft EIR Impact 5-3 and the Castilleja School Project – Environmental Effects of Scheme D and Scheme E Memorandum, the Modified Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E would create new sources of light that could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and tree removal associated with the project could increase the potential for outdoor lighting to shine on adjacent property. The Modified Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E project plans (as identified in Section V of these findings) identify that lighting fixtures for the project would include bollards and ground-level fixtures along walkways and near building entrances, building-mounted lighting around building perimeters and at entrances, ground- level lighting in bicycle parking areas, and wall mounted lighting on steps and planter walls.
The potential for windows to result in glare would be minimized with roof overhangs, tree retention and planting, and fencing that would reduce direct solar exposure on windows and reduce the potential for light reflecting off windows to create glare for drivers on adjacent streets. The project does not propose use of highly reflective surfaces, such as mirrored glass, black glass, or metal building materials and thus would not create potentially significant impacts associated with glare.
Finding: Changes in the project to avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR are required. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5a will ensure that the potential for the project to create substantial light spillover onto the adjacent public right-of-way or private property would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 5a requires the project applicant to develop a lighting plan for each development phase and requires that the lighting plans demonstrate attainment of the performance standards identified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which requires that lighting be installed such that no light source within the project site generates a light level greater than 0.5 foot-candle on any off-site residential property.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Cultural Resources
Impact 6-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archeological resource.
Summary: No archeological resources were identified through record searches and surveys, however, there are known archeological resources in the project region and thus there is a potential for earth-moving activities to disturb previously unknown archeological resources, if any occurred on site. The project also has the potential to indirectly or accidentally affect the existing historic resources onsite and adjacent to the site during construction by exposure to dust, debris, and accidental contact with construction equipment. The analysis in Draft EIR Chapter
13.b
Packet Pg. 209
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 17 May 2022
8 demonstrates that vibration associated with project construction is not anticipated to adversely affect any adjacent historic resources.
Finding: Changes in the project to avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR are required. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 6a and 6b will ensure that the potential for the project to adversely affect significant below-grade archeological resources or cause damage to historic resources onsite and adjacent to the site during construction would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 6a requires development and approval of a preservation protection plan for each phase of construction to ensure that historic buildings within and adjacent to the site are not adversely affected by dust, debris, and/or damage from accidental contact with construction equipment. Mitigation Measure 6b requires education of construction workers on archeological resources and the steps to take in the event of the discovery of any previously unrecorded resource.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Transportation
Impact 7-1 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
Summary: The Modified Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E includes three drop-off/pick-up locations for Castilleja students. The project applicant proposed assigning a certain percentage of students to each of the three locations. As discussed in Master Response 4, the proposed percentage assignments would create an impact under the TIRE Index by increasing daily traffic volumes on two segments of Bryant Street and could result in vehicle queues that exceed capacity for the Bryant Street drop off location.
Finding: Changes in the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR are required. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7a will ensure that the potential for the project to create a substantial increase in traffic volumes on Bryant Street or cause vehicle queues that extend into the public right-of-way would be avoided, thus the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 7a requires adjustments to the percent of students assigned to each drop-off/pick-up location, consistent with the recommendations of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for this project and Final EIR Table MR4-2. It also includes a requirement that the drop-off assignments be reassessed through routine monitoring to balance traffic flows sufficient to avoid a significant TIRE Index increase in the project vicinity and maintain appropriate vehicle queues. Further, Mitigation Measure 7a identifies performance standards that must be attained by the school’s enhanced TDM program and establishes requirements for monitoring and reporting on the effectiveness of the TDM program.
13.b
Packet Pg. 210
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 18 May 2022
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Impact 7-4: Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment Summary: Draft EIR Impact 7-4 evaluates whether the proposed project could introduce new roadway hazards by creating vehicle queues that extend into the public right-of-way or providing inadequate sight distance at driveways where vehicles exit the site and enter the public right-of-way. As discussed in Master Response 4 and the Castilleja School Project – Environmental Effects of Scheme D and Scheme E Memorandum, the Modified Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E would result in vehicle queues for the Bryant Street drop-off location that exceed the available storage and would extend into Bryant Street under the proposed allocations to each of the three drop-off locations.
Additionally, sight distance could be constrained by landscaping and/or on-street parking at the project site driveways. These conditions would result in significant impacts.
Finding: Changes in the project are required to avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 7a and 7b will ensure that the potential for the project to substantially increase transportation hazards would be reduced to a less- than-significant level.
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 7a requires adjustments to the percent of students assigned to each drop-off/pick-up location, consistent with the recommendations of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for this project and Final EIR Table MR4-2 to ensure that vehicle queues do not extend into the public right-of-way. It also includes a requirement that the vehicle queue lengths be monitored and drop-off assignments be reassessed to ensure that appropriate vehicle queues are maintained. Mitigation Measure 7b stipulates that a minimum of 150 feet of sight distance must be maintained through vegetation trimming and prohibiting on- street parking adjacent to each driveway.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Impact 7-5: Result in inadequate emergency access.
Summary: The project would not create traffic congestion or changes in roadway configurations that could interfere with emergency response or substantially lengthen response times but could result in interference with emergency response in the project vicinity if vehicle queues at the drop-off/pick-up locations extend into the public right-of-way.
Finding: Changes in the project are required to avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7a will ensure that the potential for the project to cause vehicle queues that extend into the public right-of-way would be avoided, thus the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
13.b
Packet Pg. 211
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 19 May 2022
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 7a requires that the drop-off/pick-up location assignments be assessed through routine monitoring and adjusted to balance traffic flows sufficient to maintain appropriate vehicle queues.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Impact 7-7: Contribute to a cumulative increase in traffic that conflicts with adopted policies and plans.
Summary: The City’s traffic model anticipates that background traffic volumes will continue to increase over time, but Castilleja traffic is expected to remain constant or decrease because the school would be required under the TDM plan and Mitigation Measure 7a to maintain a maximum daily trip rate of 2.4 trips per student. The project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant for all roadways in the study area except the segments of Bryant Street between Embarcadero Road and Churchill Avenue.
Finding: Changes in the project are required to substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7a will ensure that the potential for the project to create a substantial increase in traffic volumes on Bryant Street would be avoided, thus the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 7a requires adjustments to the percent of students assigned to each drop-off/pick-up location, consistent with the recommendations of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for this project. It also includes a requirement that the drop-off assignments be reassessed through routine monitoring to balance traffic flows sufficient to avoid a significant TIRE Index increase in the project vicinity. Further, Mitigation Measure 7a identifies performance standards that must be attained by the school’s enhanced TDM program and establishes requirements for monitoring and reporting on the effectiveness of the TDM program.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Noise
Impact 8-1: Expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; or create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project
Summary: Nighttime outdoor special events and use of amplified sound during pool events has the potential to expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of the standards established in the Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code. The project would not create significant noise impacts associated with vehicle traffic because it would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes on any roadway segments. The project would not create significant noise impacts associated with truck and bus activity because it would relocate delivery and trash
13.b
Packet Pg. 212
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 20 May 2022
pickup activity to a below-grade loading zone and would relocate bus loading to the interior of the project site.
Finding: Changes in the project are required to substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4a and 8a will ensure that the potential for the project to create a substantial increase in noise levels associated with special events would be avoided, thus the impact would be reduced to a less-than- significant level.
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 4a, as identified in Draft EIR Chapter 4, Land Use, will ensure that excessive nighttime noise is not generated by special events by requiring that athletic competitions end by 8 p.m. Mitigation Measure 8a establishes a performance standard that must be attained at the time that the loudspeaker system for the pool area is designed, which must be demonstrated in a noise assessment prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Impact 8-2: Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proposed project Summary: The project could generate substantial periodic increases in noise during nighttime outdoor special events and use of amplified sound during pool events and project construction activities could generate substantial temporary increases in noise.
Finding: Changes in the project are required to substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4a, 8a, and 8b will ensure that the potential for the project to create substantial periodic or temporary increases in noise levels associated with special events and construction would be avoided, thus the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 4a, as identified in Draft EIR Chapter 4, Land Use, will ensure that excessive nighttime noise is not generated by special events by requiring that athletic competitions end by 8 p.m. Mitigation Measure 8a establishes a performance standard that must be attained at the time that the loudspeaker system for the pool area is designed, which must be demonstrated in a noise assessment prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant. Mitigation Measure 8b will ensure that noise levels during construction remain below the City’s standards for maximum instantaneous noise levels and for the amount by which construction noise levels exceed ambient noise conditions by requiring for each construction phase that Castilleja School submit to the City an inventory and schedule of the construction equipment proposed to be used during that phase, a technical analysis of the noise levels that could be generated during construction, and recommended measures to ensure that noise levels during construction meet the City’s standards.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
13.b
Packet Pg. 213
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 21 May 2022
Impact 8-3: Expose people to or generate excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels Summary: Construction of the Modified Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E would involve use of a variety of heavy equipment, which could cause ground borne vibration. None of the residential structures in the project vicinity would be exposed to vibrations that could cause vibration damage, but the onsite Administration/Chapel building could be subject to ground borne vibration damage during demolition of the adjacent academic building. The project does not include any operational activities that would result in groundborne vibration or noise that would be perceptible off site.
Finding: Changes in the project are required to avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6a will ensure that the potential for the project to cause excessive ground borne vibration would be avoided, thus the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 6a, as presented in Draft EIR Chapter 6, Cultural Resources, requires that a protection plan be implemented for the Administration/Chapel Theater building that documents the specific nature of demolition activities that would occur on any portion of the building that touches or is within 25 feet of the Administration/Chapel Theater building and provides recommendations for equipment usage and demolition techniques that will avoid adverse effects to the Administration/Chapel Theater building by ensuring that continuous vibrations remain below approximately 0.25 in/sec.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Air Quality
Impact 9-1: 1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Summary: Construction of the project is not expected to result in average daily emissions of criteria air pollutants that exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. However, the project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan if the BAAQMD basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of coarse particulate matter are not implemented, as required by the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding: Changes in the project are required to avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9a will ensure that the potential for the project to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan would be avoided, thus the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 9a requires that the City of Palo Alto ensure that site plan notes include requirements for the construction contractor to implement the BAAQMD Basic Construction Emission Control Measures and perform visual inspections during construction.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 9a, project construction would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and the City’s requirements for limiting construction emissions.
13.b
Packet Pg. 214
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 22 May 2022
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Impact 9-3 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Summary: As discussed in Final EIR Master Response 4 and the Castilleja School Project – Environmental Effects of Scheme D and Scheme E Memorandum, the Modified Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E would result in similar impacts as the originally proposed project as discussed in Impact 9-3. As discussed under Draft EIR Impact 9-3, demolition of structures built prior to 1980 could result in the release of contaminated materials and hazardous substances that may be present in the buildings, such as lead- based paint or asbestos. Other construction activities would not expose students, workers, or neighbors to substantial air pollutant concentrations. Vehicle traffic during operation of the proposed project would not be expected to create carbon monoxide hotspots that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of hazardous emissions.
Finding: Changes in the project are required to avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 will ensure that the potential for the project to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be avoided, thus the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Explanation: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, as identified in the Initial Study (Final EIR Appendix A), requires that prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the project applicant shall retain a qualified professional to complete a survey of the building proposed for demolition to determine if lead-containing materials, asbestos containing materials, and/or polychlorinated biphenyls are present; retaining a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related construction work to carry out any demolition activities likely to disturb such materials; and following regulatory protocols for handling and disposal of these materials.
Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR and the Castilleja School Project – Environmental Effects of Scheme D and Scheme E Memorandum that all of the significant and potentially significant impacts that could result from the Modified Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative - Scheme E would be reduced to less-than-significant levels and thus the project would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.
IX. P ROJECT ALTERNATIVES FINDINGS
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such project[s].” When a lead agency finds, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, that a project will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, it must, prior to
13.b
Packet Pg. 215
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 23 May 2022
approving the project as mitigated, first determine whether there are any project alternatives that are feasible and that would substantially lessen or avoid the project’s significant impacts. As stated in Section VIII above, there are no significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project.
However, an alternatives analysis was completed and included in the Final EIR.
Reasonable Range of Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f) states that the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Further, CEQA Guidelines §15126(a) requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives that would “feasibly obtain most of the basic project objectives” but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Thus, the project objectives presented in the EIR provided the framework for defining the possible alternatives. Based upon guidance contained in the CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law as well as the project objectives, the Final EIR provides the following analysis regarding project alternatives:
• The Draft EIR identified six alternatives that were preliminarily considered but rejected from detailed analysis because they were incapable of meeting most of the basic project objectives, would not reduce or avoid any of the project’s significant effects, and/or would require speculation to evaluate. These include: offsite alternative – relocate full campus, partial offsite alternative (relocate a portion of the student body and staff to a new second campus), other offsite options (relocate sports and special events to other locations), surface parking, modified circulation routes, and minimum enrollment increase.
• The Draft EIR provided detailed analysis of three project alternatives: the No Project Alternative (as required by CEQA), the Moderate Enrollment Increase Alternative, and the Moderate Enrollment Increase with Reduced Parking Alternative.
• In response to comments received on the Draft EIR, the Final EIR evaluated the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative.
• In response to recommendations and direction provided by the City’s HRB, ARB, PTC, and City Council, an additional five variants of the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative have been developed and reviewed by the City. The environmental effects of two of these additional variants were evaluated in the Castilleja School Project – Environmental Effects of Scheme D and Scheme E Memorandum; and the Modified Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative – Scheme E has replaced the proposed project. • The Final EIR also considered the one additional alternative – the No Garage Alternative – and provided additional discussion of the alternatives that were preliminarily considered in the Draft EIR but rejected from detailed analysis as described above. These included consideration of various alternative enrollment caps, creating a split campus or a second campus, and relocating the school.
The City Council finds that that a good-faith effort was made to evaluate a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives in the EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the project and could feasibly obtain
13.b
Packet Pg. 216
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 24 May 2022
most of the basic objectives of the project, even when the alternatives might impede the attainment of the project’s objectives and might be more costly.
Feasibility of Project Alternatives
Although an EIR must evaluate a range of potentially feasible alternatives, an agency decision-making body may ultimately conclude that a potentially feasible alternative is actually infeasible. (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001-1002.) CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(1) provides that among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are “site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.” Grounds for a conclusion of infeasibility might be the failure of an alternative to fully satisfy project objectives deemed to be important by decision-makers, or the fact that an alternative fails to promote policy objectives of concern to such decision-makers. (Id. at pp. 992, 1000-1003.) It is well established under CEQA that an agency may reject alternatives based on economic infeasibility. (Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage v. City and County of San Francisco (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 893, 913- 914; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 774; Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1399-1400; Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1510.) In addition, the definition of feasibility encompasses “desirability” to the extent that an agency’s determination of infeasibility represents a reasonable balancing of competing economic, environmental, social, and technological factors supported by substantial evidence. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410; 417.) Thus, even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of a proposed project as mitigated, the decision-makers may reject the alternative for such reasons.
Analysis of Project Alternatives
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes that the proposed Castilleja School Project would not be constructed and that no changes to the existing Conditional Use Permit would be made. Castilleja would be restricted to a maximum enrollment of 415 students each year. No demolition or construction would occur within the campus, and no changes would be made to the school’s special event schedule or provisions for student, staff, and visitor parking. The EIR concluded that this alternative would have reduced impacts associated with land use, aesthetics, cultural resources, transportation, noise, and air quality; however the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the proposed project objectives and would not achieve the project’s aesthetic benefits associated with enhancing the site architecture, landscaping, and fencing and the project’s noise benefits of reducing neighbors’ exposure to noise associated with use of the pool.
No Project Alternative Findings: The City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible in that it meets none of the project objectives. Specifically, it does not support the project objectives of increasing enrollment, increasing the campus’s sustainability and energy efficiency, increasing on-site parking, and improving architectural compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. For all of the foregoing
13.b
Packet Pg. 217
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 25 May 2022
reasons, and for any of them individually, the City Council determines that the No Project Alternative is infeasible and is hereby rejected.
Moderate Enrollment Increase Alternative
This alternative considered a maximum enrollment of 506 students, which is 34 students fewer than proposed. The Moderate Enrollment Increase Alternative would include construction of the new academic building to include 30 classrooms, construction of the below-grade parking structure with 117 parking spaces (as contemplated in the original Castilleja School Project proposal), demolition of the two residential structures on Emerson Street (as contemplated in the original Castilleja School Project proposal), and a reduction in the number of parking spaces in the proposed surface parking lot at Emerson Street and Kellogg Avenue.
The Moderate Enrollment Increase Alternative was found to slightly reduce potential land use and transportation impacts compared to the originally proposed project but would increase those impacts compared to the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative. This alternative would result in similar aesthetic impacts as either the originally proposed project or the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative because building scale, massing, materials, colors, and details as well as landscaping and fencing would be generally the same. The Moderate Enrollment Increase Alternative would also result in similar impacts associated with cultural resources, noise, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, and geology and soils as the proposed project because it would involve a similar level of construction and project site redevelopment.
Moderate Enrollment Increase Alternative Findings: While the alternative may be feasible and capable of meeting most of the basic project objectives, this alternative does not substantially reduce impacts compared to the proposed project, and would increase the potential land use and transportation impacts compared to the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative. Therefore, under CEQA, the Moderate Enrollment Increase Alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed project.
Moderate Enrollment Increase with Reduced Parking Alternative The Moderate Enrollment Increase with Reduced Parking Alternative would establish a maximum enrollment of 506 students and would reduce the on-site parking to the minimum required by code by reducing the size of the below-grade parking structure to 58 spaces and increasing surface parking within the project site. This alternative would require two fewer classrooms and 46 fewer parking spaces than the proposed project.
The Moderate Enrollment Increase with Reduced Parking Alternative was found to slightly reduce potential land use and transportation impacts compared to the originally proposed project but would increase those impacts compared to the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative. This alternative would result in a slight reduction in aesthetic impacts as either the originally proposed project or the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative because building scale and massing would be slightly reduced, while building materials, colors, and details as well as landscaping and fencing would be generally the same. The Moderate Enrollment Increase with Reduced Parking Alternative would also result in similar impacts associated with cultural resources, noise, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, and geology and soils as the proposed project because it would involve a similar level of construction and project site redevelopment.
13.b
Packet Pg. 218
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 26 May 2022
Moderate Enrollment Increase with Reduced Parking Alternative Findings: While the alternative may be feasible and capable of meeting most of the basic project objectives, this alternative does not substantially reduce impacts compared to the proposed project, and would increase the potential land use and transportation impacts compared to the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative. Therefore, under CEQA, the Moderate Enrollment Increase with Reduced Parking Alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed project.
No Garage Alternative
The No Garage Alternative eliminates the parking garage from the project while accommodating a slightly reduced level of redevelopment in other areas of the project. A surface parking lot would be created along Emerson Street, in place of the two existing residential structures. This alternative would use a similar disbursed circulation plan as the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative, with drop-off/pick-up occurring at the Bryant Street loop driveway, the Kellogg Avenue loop driveway, and the Emerson Street surface parking lot. Based on the space available for the Emerson Street surface parking lot, the No Garage Alternative also includes a reduction in classroom space and a commensurate reduction in the enrollment cap. The No Garage Alternative would provide 92 parking spaces, allowing for construction of a total of 29 classrooms and accommodating an enrollment cap of 489 students.
The No Garage Alternative would result in the following potential changes in the project’s environmental effects:
• Increased potential for loss of community character by replacing landscaped residential lots (current condition) or a landscaped passive park setting (proposed project) with a surface parking lot. Landscaping and fencing could be used to shield public views of the parking lot, keeping this effect at a less than significant level.
• Increased amount of tree removal in the parking lot location, but this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4b, and thus, impacts would not be increased in comparison to the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative. • Reduced potential transportation impacts due to the reduction in student enrollment, however the alternative would result in a potential for TIRE Index impacts on Bryant Street and for vehicle queues to extend into the public right-of-way. These impacts would be reduced to a less-than- significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 7a. • Potential for increased noise impacts to residences on Emerson Street associated with use of the surface parking lot for special event parking. During daytime special events, noise effects from use of the parking lot would be mitigated with an appropriate setback and noise barrier constructed along the northern boundary of the parking lot. During evening special events, when the City’s noise standards are lower to reflect the higher noise sensitivity in nighttime hours, it may be necessary to restrict parking within the northernmost portion of the surface parking lot to ensure that noise exposure for the adjacent residence remains at acceptable levels. This could result in additional on-street parking during evening events compared to the proposed project, however parking demand would not be greater than under existing conditions and thus this does not indicate that this alternative would result in a new significant impact. • Similar impacts associated with cultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, and geology and soils as the proposed project because it would involve a similar level of construction and project site redevelopment.
13.b
Packet Pg. 219
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 27 May 2022
No Garage Alternative Findings: This alternative would require a substantial reduction in the proposed enrollment level. Thus, this alternative would impede attainment of one of the primary project objectives. Additionally, this alternative has the potential to increase some project impacts, although the impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures. Further, this alternative does not substantially reduce impacts compared to the proposed project. Therefore, under CEQA, the No Garage Alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed project.
X. G ROWTH INDUCEMENT FINDINGS
Growth can be induced in a number of ways, such as through the elimination of obstacles to growth, through the stimulation of economic activity within the region, or through the establishment of policies or other precedents that directly or indirectly encourage additional growth. Induced growth would be considered a significant impact if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth would directly or indirectly have a significant effect on the environment.
New employees from commercial or industrial development and new population from residential development represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area. A project could indirectly induce growth by reducing or removing barriers to growth, or by creating a condition that attracts additional population or new economic activity.
Construction of the Castilleja School Project would create short-term construction jobs. These are anticipated to be filled by workers who, for the most part, already reside in the surrounding area.
Therefore, project construction is not expected to induce other growth in the City or region.
The proposed increase in student enrollment would require add an additional 10 employees at full project buildout. The existing school currently employs 122 full time employees. These new employees could indirectly induce a small amount of economic growth in the City to the extent that the employees might seek housing and would be expected to purchase food and services in the area. However, the potential for growth inducement due to the increase in employees is not considered substantial because the scale of the expected increase in employment is insufficient to trigger noticeable changes in the housing market or demand for local goods and services, as evaluated in Draft EIR Section 14.4.
Finding: The Castilleja School Project would not induce substantial growth in the project area or region.
Explanation: The potential for growth inducement due to project construction and the increase in student enrollment is not considered substantial. The increase in employment opportunities associated with the project (10 new employees) would provide would be insufficient to trigger noticeable changes in the housing market or demand for local goods and services. In addition, construction of the proposed project would be temporary and these short-term construction jobs are anticipated to be filled by workers who, for the most part, reside in the surrounding area.
13.b
Packet Pg. 220
Castilleja School Project
Statement of Findings 28 May 2022
XII. C ONCLUSION
The mitigation measures listed in conjunction with each of the findings set forth above, as implemented through the MMP, will eliminate or reduce to a less than significant level all adverse environmental impacts of the Castilleja School Project – Modified Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative - Scheme E.
Taken together, the Final EIR, the mitigation measures, and the MMP provide an adequate basis for approval of the Castilleja School Project – Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative - Scheme E.
13.b
Packet Pg. 221
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
1 0160075_20220512_ay16
Ordinance No.____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend the Gross Floor Area Definition for Low Density Residential Zones
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Subsection (a)(65) (Gross Floor Area) of Section 18. 04.030 (Definitions) of Chapter
18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is amended to read as follows (additions
underlined and deletions struck-through; omissions noted with [. . .] represent unchanged text):
(a) Throughout this title the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed in this section.
[. . .]
(65) “Gross floor area” is defined as follows:
[. . .]
(C) Low Density Residential Inclusions and Conditions: In the RE and R-1 single- family residence districts and in the R -2 and RMD two -family residence districts, “gross floor area” means the total covered area of all floors of a main structure and accesso ry structures greater than one hundred and twenty square feet in area, including covered parking and stairways, measured to the outside of stud walls, “(C) Low Density Residential Inclusions and Conditions: In the RE and R-1 single - family residence districts and in the R -2 and RMD two -family residence districts, “gross floor area” means the total covered area of all floors of a main structure and accessory structures greater than one hundred and twenty square feet in area, including covered parking and stairways, measured to the outside of stud walls, including the following:
[. . .]
(iii) Carports and, garages
, and below grade parking facilities, except as excluded in subsection (a)(65)(D)(viii), shall be included in gross floor area.
[. . .]
“(D) Low Density Residential Exclusions: In the RE and R -1 single-family residence districts and in the R-2 and RMD two-family residence districts, “gross floor area” shall not include the following:
[. . .]
(viii) Below-grade parking facilities that: (1) are accessory to nonresidential uses; (2) are located on a parcel that is six acres or greater; and (3) are located on a parcel that contains
13.c
Packet Pg. 222
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
2 0160075_20220512_ay16
a listed historic resource; and 4) do not provide more than 50 percent of the base required on-site vehicle parking shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area. A below grade parking facilit y that does not meet all of these criteria shall be included in the calculation of gross floor area in its entirety.
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of th is Ordinance, to the exte nt of such in consistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. If any se ction, subsection, s entence, clause, or phrase of th is Ordi nance is for a ny reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity o f the remaining portions of t his Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it wo uld have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4
The Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b) (3), 15301, 15302 and 15305 because it constitutes minor adjustments to the City’s zoning ordinance. As such, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed action will not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 5
. T his ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________________ __________________________________ City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
_________________________________ __________________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager
__________________________________
Director of Planning & Development Services
13.c
Packet Pg. 223
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
1 0160076_20220512_ay16
Ordinance No.____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend the Gross Floor Area Definition for Low Density Residential Zones
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Subsection (a)(65) (Gross Floor Area) of Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Chapter
18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is amended to read as follows (additions underlined and deletions struck-through; omissions noted with [. . .] represent unchanged text):
(a) Throughout this title the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed in this section.
[. . .]
(65) “Gross floor area” is defined as follows:
[. . .]
(C) Low Density Residential Inclusions and Conditions: In the RE and R -1 single- family residence districts and in the R -2 and RMD two -family residence districts, “gross floor area” means the total covered area of all floors of a main structure and accessory structures greater than one hundred and twenty square feet in area, including covered parking and stairways, measured to the outside of stud walls, “(C) Low Density Residential Inclusions and Conditions: In the RE and R -1 single- family residence districts and in the R-2 and RMD two -family residence districts, “gross floor area” means the total covered area of all floors of a main structure and accessory structures greater than one hundred and twenty square feet in area, including covered parking and stairways, measured to the outside of stud walls, including the following:
[. . .]
(iii) Carports and, garages
, and below grade parking facilities, except as excluded in subsection (a)(65)(D)(viii), shall be included in gross floor area.
[. . .]
“(D) Low Density Residential Exclusions: In the RE and R-1 single-family residence districts and in the R-2 and RMD two -family residence districts, “gross floor area” shall not include the following:
13.d
Packet Pg. 224
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
2 0160076_20220512_ay16
[. . .]
(viii) Below-grade parking facilities shall be excluded from gross floor area to the extent that they: (1) are accessory to nonresidential uses ; (2) are located on a parcel that is two acres or greater; and (3) do not provide more than the number of parking spaces specifically set forth in a conditional use permit approval, as determined by the City pursuant to section 18.76.0 13. A below grade parking facility that does not meet all of these criteria shall be included in the calculation of gross floor area in its entirety.
SECTION 2. Section 18. 76.013 (Additional Findings for Exempt Below-Grade Parking in Low - Density Residential Zones) of Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) is added read as follows:
18.76.013 Additional Findings for Exempt Below-Grade Parking in Low-Density Residential Zones
(a) In the event an applicant for a conditional use permit seeks to exempt from Gross Floor Area the square footage of a below-grade parking facility in a low density residential zone, a conditional use permit shall not be granted unless it is found, in addition to the findings required by section 18.76.010, that:
(1) The size and capacity of the below-grade parking structure is appropriate to the context of the site and the proposed use.
(2) The provision of on-site parking in a below -grade parking structure will enhance conditions on the site and in the surrounding community, including ease and safety of multi-modal transportation to and from the property.
(b) The number of parking spaces that may be provided in the below-grade parking facility shall be set forth in the conditional use permit approval.
SECTION 3
. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provi sions of th is Ordinance, to the exte nt of such in consistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4
. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the v alidity of the remaining portions of t his Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it wo uld have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any po rtion of th e ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5
. The Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b) (3), 15301, 15302 and 15305 because it constitutes minor adjustments to the City’s zoning ordinance. As such, it can be seen with certainty
13.d
Packet Pg. 225
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
3 0160076_20220512_ay16
that the proposed action will not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 6
. T his or dinance shall be effective on the th irty-first d ate after the d ate of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________________ __________________________________ City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
_________________________________ __________________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager
__________________________________
Director of Planning & Development
Services
13.d
Packet Pg. 226
DRAFT
ACTION NO. 2022-0X
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION 1310 BRYANT STREET (CASTILLEJA)
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 19PLN-00116 WITH PARKING ADJUSTMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE 16PLN-00238
On May 23, 2022 , the Council _____ the _______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 March 8 and 15, 2021, City Council held public hearings of the Architectural Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance applications, and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prior to certifying the adequacy of the EIR, as reflected in the Resolution (2022-OX), and B. The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the DEIR and Final EIR and on September 9, 2020, recommended Council certify the EIR. The Final EIR, published July 29 and 30, 2020, responded to public review comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) published July 17, 2019. The analyses included Project alternatives. The Commission’s five meetings included August 20, September 9, October 28, November 4, and November 18, 2020. On November 18, 2020, the Commission supported the four Variance findings to support the Gross Floor Area replacement, and the first of two CUP findings, with a split vote on the second CUP finding, to forward the CUP with modified approval conditions.
C. The ARB reviewed the Castilleja School Project during three hearings (August 20, October 1, 2020, and November 5, 2020), including the Final EIR, Architectural Review Findings and Approval Conditions, and recommended approval of the Architectural Review application for phased redevelopment at 1310 Bryant Street on November 5, 2020, in support of the updated Alternative Project Plans.
D. The City Council considered the EIR and discretionary applications on March 8, 15 and 29, 2021; Council rem anded the project to the Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commission on March 29, 2021. Council directed staff to return with an ordinance to count a portion of below grade non-residential garages toward gross floor area if the parking within is more than 50% of the code-required parking spaces for the use, to reduce below grade parking to 50% of the code-required parking spaces, and to address additional direction.
E. The Architectural Review Board met twice after Council’s Marc h 29, 2021 direction, focusing on parking options and building revisions responsive to Council direction; the ARB supported building changes and parking changes on December 2, 2021 and March 17, 2022, with a recommendation for hybrid designs combining Parking Options D and E, and Kellogg Façade Study components blended with the previously recommended design.
F. The Planning and Transportation Commission met five times after Council’s March 29, 2021 direction, on December 8, 2021, December 15, 2021, January 19, 2022, March 30, 2022 and April 20, 2022, focusing on staff and the applicant’s responses to Council dire ction along with components within its purview including the Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Ordinance, and
13.e
Packet Pg. 227
Parking Adjustment. The PTC supported Parking Option E and the TDM program as addressing the Council direction, while other items of discussion remanded to the PTC by Council received only three votes of PTC members attending and therefore not a majority of the Commission.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City, as the lead agency prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The public notice period for the DEIR began on July 17, 2020 and concluded following a 60- day public review and comment period. Responses to comments received prior to the end of the public comment period were prepared and included with responses and evaluation of an additional project alternative in a Final EIR published July 30, 2020, for Council certification.
1. The environmental effects of the Project and Project Alternative have been analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA).
2. The Draft EIR identified one or more potentially significant effects of the Project and Project Alternative on the environment as well as mitigation measures that would, for the Project Alternative #4, reduce the significant effects to a less than significant level. The Project applicant, before public release of the Final EIR, submitted the ‘Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative’ (Project Alternative #4) which modifies the Project to mitigate the effects to a less than significant level and address many community concerns, as demonstrated through the Council certification of the Final EIR by Resolution, and adoption of the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
3. The Director independently reviewed and considered the DEIR, together with public comments received during the public review process and other information in the record, prior to forwarding the recommendations from the HRB, ARB and PTC on the Final EIR to the City Council.
4. The EIR reflects and represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Palo Alto as lead agency.
5. Based on the whole record of proceedings, the City Council adopted by Resolution (###) findings that there is no substantial evidence the Project Alternative will have a significant effect on the environment, with implementation of the Mitigation Measures.
6. The Director of Planning and Development Services at the Director’s Office at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94301 is the custodian of records and documents of proceedings on which this decision is based.
SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings. The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Archi tectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76. The design and architecture of the proposed public parking garage complies with the Six Findings for Architectural Review set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.76 Section
18.76.020 effective as of January 12, 2017.
Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code.
The Project Alternative #4 with Option E conforms to the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies.
Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan
13.e
Packet Pg. 228
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the
site is Single Family Residential
Castilleja School has existed at this site since 1910 and has co -existed since 1960 via CUP with the surrounding Single-Family Residential uses Land Use and Community Design Element
Policy L-1.1: Maintain and prioritize Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the
vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities.
The school’s functionality will be enhanced for increased safety, sustainability, and programmatic space to better serve its student population. Project features are intended to minimize existing school-related disruptions on the surrounding neighborhood: below grade pool with sound -wall, and all but 2637 parking spaces are hidden below grade, the distributed drop off to avoid TIRE impact on Emerson; preservation of mature trees that are of value to the community.
Policy L-1.5: Regulate land uses in Palo Alto according to the land use definition in this Element and Map L-
6. Schools are conditionally permitted uses in areas designated as Single-Family Residential. This is not a ‘grandfathered use’. No change to the land use designation is proposed.
Policy L-1.6: Encourage land uses that address the
needs of the community and manage change and
development to benefit the community.
Existing school land use is single-gender, non-sectarian school. Schools are an important community n eed. Project expands enrollment gradually with as facilities are redeveloped for increased safety, sustainability, and programmatic space with enhanced TDM.
Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest
development standards to maintain Palo Alto’s
livability and achieve the highest quality
development with the least impacts.
New building design utilizes high quality materials, results in net reduction of campus gross floor area (and thus, FAR). Based on the third-party report of existing GFA, total gross floor area reduced by 988 sf) 9,658 sf (or by 3,478 sf if the volumetric area proposed to be removed were deleted from the consideration of GFA to be removed) . Increased area below grade. Building replaces over -height limit buildings with building meeting height limit.
Temporary changes in campus -wide visual character will occur, via demolition, construction and associated tree removal. Overall, project would improve the site’s visual character its compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood compared to existing conditions by reducing the perceived building scale and massing.
Policy L -2.11: Encourage new development and
redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural
features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas
and rain gardens.
The site plan includes greater open space area (3,766 sf) (3,323 sf in Project Alternative #4 plans) than what exists. This new open space was reduced from 6,904 sf additional open space for Project Alternative noted in EIR (Existing open s pace at 140,390 sf; 143,713 sf, as amended post Council March 2021 147,294 sf, in Alternative #4). New porch at 3,513 sf reduces the increase in open space to 164 sf; however, the porch has 1,954 sf green roof.
With 11 surface parking spaces added in Option E, the prior gain of 3,345 sf is reduced by 1,782 sf (11 spaces x 180 sf each) for a reduced total increase in open space of 1,541 sf). Circle to be smaller but retained. Project incorporates new planter areas, preserves most trees around the site’s perimeter, provides additional landscaping with trees, shrubs, grasses, vines, and groundcover, gardens adjacent to buildings, bioretention a reas, and a green roof above subterranean parking facility.
Policy L-2.8: When considering infill redevelopment,
work to minimize displacement of existing residents.
The houses on Emerson Street are retained under Project Alternative #4. One house is used as a rental housing unit. Both of these R -1 properties are developable with second dwelling units to increase housing supply.
Policy L -3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled
structures are compatible with the neighborhood and
adjacent structures.
The new academic building complies with the R-1 height limit and the revised Kellogg elevation shows the roofline/mass at second floor level broken to help the proposed building’s scale and massing to be more compatible with neighboring residences. Buildings would be slightly smaller in scale and mass than the existing buildings. Buildi ng design incorporates articulation and variety in material and colors to further break up the massing. Architectural features, fences and walls similar to those found in residential, rather than institutional, neighborhoods; examples: large roof overhangs with exposed wood beams, trellised patios, outdoor covered areas, use of exterior materials that are predominant in the neighborhood.
Program L4.9.1: While preserving adequate parking
to meet demand, identify strategies to reuse surface
parking lots.
The existing surface parking lot next to the gym is to be reused as below - grade pool location; the size of the parking lot at Emerson/Kellogg is reduced and tandem spaces eliminated.
13.e
Packet Pg. 229
Goal L -6: Well-designed Buildings that Create
Coherent Development Patt erns and Enhance City
Streets and Public Spaces.
Policy L -6.1: Promote high -quality design and site
planning that is compatible with surrounding
development and public spaces.
Policy L-6.7: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in
scale and density between residential and non -
residential areas and between residential areas of
different densities. To promote compatibility and
gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning
district boundaries at midblock locations rather than
along streets wherever possible.
Project replaces five institutional buildings with two new buildings with slightly less gross floor area; Kellogg façade undulates; roofline and mass are broken up partway; porch entrance on Bryant connects the new buildings; updated materials are compatible with the existing residences surrounding the site. Removing outdated buildings of substantially lower quality than buildings built to current standards promotes high quality design and site planning. The new building design is more consistent with the s urrounding neighborhood; the required ARB review process ensures building will meet the City’s architectural review approval findings.
The below-grade parking facility would relocate many circulating and parked vehicles from the neighborhood streets with a new pick -up and drop -off location. On -street parking in the neighborhood will be reduced with adequate on -site parking space supply. School parking will become more compatible with residential neighbor parking. The bus drop -off and pick-up area relocated internal to the site, and loading, delivery, and trash functions moved off City streets and onto school property to reduce neighborhood congestion and noise.
New building façades scaled to the size of neighboring residences, to avoid abrupt changes in scale between residential and nonresidential uses. The project increases the amount of undeveloped open space on the project site and retaining the Emerson homes improves transitions between uses.
Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the
City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and
unacceptable due their size and scale.
The proposed changes to the site with this project are consistent with the site and neighborhood character, which is primarily a two -story residential neighborhood. Project Alternative #4 maintains scale on site and maintains the Emerson Street character by retaining the two residential structures at 1235 and 1263 Emerson.
Policy L-9.2: Encourage development that creatively
integrates parking into the project, including by
locating it behind buildings or Consistent.
Analysis underground wherever possible, or by
providing shared use of parking areas. Encourage
other alternatives to surfac e parking lots that
minimize the amount of land devoted to parking
while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a
vibrant local economy, and sufficient parking to meet
demand.
The project alternative 4, as amended by Option E, would reduce the amount of surface parking on the site from 82 spaces to 26 37 spaces and construct an underground parking facility for 117 52 spaces (10 of which are the interior space of a tandem pair and are not counted towards attainment of the City’s minimum parking requir ements). With many drop -off and pick -up traffic routed through the underground parking garage, and the availability of on- site parking, the parking garage would relocate vehicle circulation and parking away from the neighborhood streets such that the school use can be more compatible with its residential neighbors.
Policy L-9.3: Treat residential streets as both public
ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide and
maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees,
benches, and other amenities that promote walking
and “active” transportation.
The project would include bicycle parking for students consistent with the Municipal Code. The project would be consistent with all aboveground setback and landscaping requirements which would ensure a high-quality and comfortable pedestrian experience on adjacent residential streets Policy T -1.1: Take a comprehensive approach to
reducing single -occupant vehicle trips by involving
those who live, work and shop in Palo Alto in
developing strategies that make it easier a nd more
convenient not to drive
As part of the proposed Sustainability Plan, Castilleja School will implement additional Transportation Demand Management strategies to reduce peak hour vehicle trips. This includes encouraging bicycling, walking, and carpooling and providing shuttle and bus service.
Policy T -1.2: Collaborate with Palo Alto employers
and business owners to develop, implement and
expand comprehensive programs like the TMA to
reduce single -occupant vehicle commute trips,
including through incentives
As part of the proposed Sustainability Plan, Castilleja School will implement additional Transportation Demand Management strategies to reduce peak hour vehicle trips (Appendix B). This includes encouraging bicycling, walking, and carpooling and providing shuttle and bus service.
Policy T -1.6: Encourage innovation and expanded
transit access to regional destinations, multi -modal
transit stations, employment centers and commercial
centers, including those within Palo Alto through the
use of efficient public and/or private transit options
such as rideshare services, on-demand local shuttles
and other first/last mile connections.
As part of the proposed Sustainability Plan, Castilleja School will expand the school’s Transportation Demand Management program to meet the performance standards identifi ed in Mitigation Measure 7a, which may include expanding shuttle and bus service.
13.e
Packet Pg. 230
Policy T -1.16 Promote personal transportation
vehicles as an alternative to cars (e.g. bicycles,
skateboards, roller blades) to get to work, school,
shopping, recreational facilities and transit stops.
Policy T -1.19 Provide facilities that encourage and
support bicycling and walking.
Program T5.12.1 Work with employers, merchants,
schools and community service providers, to identify
ways to provide more bicycl e parking, including e -
bike parking with charging stations, near existing
shops, services and places of employment.
As part of the proposed Sustainability Plan, Castilleja School will implement additional Transportation Demand Management strategies to redu ce peak hour vehicle trips and the daily trip rate per student as required in Mitigation Measure 7a. This includes encouraging bicycling, walking, and carpooling and providing shuttle and bus service.
The project will add new bicycle facilities on- consistent with the goals of the 2012 Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan; it will improve the bicycle parking capacity of the site and incentivize the use of bicycles as a mode of transportation to the site.
• 140 bike spaces (94 long term spaces and 46 rack spaces) provided in three bike parking areas; 46 rack spaces at grade along the front of the proposed library; 52 long term spaces between the proposed pool and the parking garage exit ramp; 42 long term spaces near athletic building. • Castilleja increasing TDM efforts to meet a “no new AM or PM peak hour trips” standard (2016 TDM Plan and 2016 TDM Plan Supplement, EIR Appendix B).
• Additional requirements and performance standards for the TDM plan are identified in Mitigation Measure 7a.
• The buil ding and site design will enhance the pedestrian and bicycling environment and access to the site overall. The parking lot adjacent to Bryant Street would be reconfigured, as amended by Option E, providing 13 18 parking spaces for visitors. Emerson and Ke llogg parking lot would be repurposed as a staff parking lot with 13 15 parking spaces plus 4 additional spaces north of the new pool, per Option E.
Policy T-4.6: Require project proponents to employ
the TIRE methodology to measure potential street
impacts from proposed new development of all types
in residential neighborhoods
EIR Chapter 7, Transportation and Circulation, includes analysis of the project’s effects using the TIRE methodology. Mitigation measure 7a recommends specific percentage distributio n of drop offs to avoid TIRE impacts.
Policy T -5.1: All new development projects should
manage parking demand generated by the project,
without the use of on street parking, consistent with
the established parking regulations. As demonstrated
parking demand decreases over time, parking
requirements for new construction should decrease.
Policy T-5.6: Strongly encourage the use of below -
grade or structured parking and explore mechanized
parking instead of surface parking for new
developments of all types while minimizing negative
impacts including on groundw ater and landscaping
where feasible.
Policy T-5.11: Work to protect residential areas from
parking impacts of nearby businesses and uses,
recognizing that fully addressing some existing
intrusions may take time.
MostHalf of the required on -site parking, per Option E , will be in a below - grade parking garage within the project site. Currently, the campus does not provide sufficient vehicle parking to meet the Municipal Code requirements.
The original project’s on -site parking facilities would exceed the Municipal Code requirements; Project Alternative #4’s parking facilities would meet the Municipal Code requirements. Option E adds eleven surface spaces to the 26 spaces in Project Alternative 4 but reduces below grade parking spaces to 52 spaces to respond to Council direction in March 2021, associated with a parking adjustment request of 14.4% based on robust TDM plan . Further, tThe facilities would not improve the ratio of parking spaces to students , which would reduce the amount of on-street parking in the neighborhood.
The development of below-grade parking and improved TDM plan to meet ‘no net new trips’ requirement would reduce the use of on -street parking by students and parents and would therefore reduce the intru sion of campus vehicles on street parking in the residential neighborhood.
The 14.4% reduction is based on the project’s transportation and parking alternatives, where effective alternatives to automobile access are provided.
The 14.4% reduction results in deletion of 15 on-site parking spaces of the 104 code-required spaces. This reduction is commensurate with the permanence, effectiveness, and the demonstrated reduction of off-street parking demand effectuated by the TDM program.
Policy T-5.12: To promote bicycle use, increase the
number of safe, attractive and well-designed bicycle
parking spaces available in the city, including spots
for diverse types of bicycle and associated
equipment, including bicycle trailers, prioritizing
heavily travelled areas such as commercial and retail
centers, employment districts, recreational/cultural
facilities, multi-modal transit facilities and ride share The project includes provision of onsite bicycle parking and a bicycle repair station for students and staff. As part of the Transportation Demand Management Plan, the project would also provide for bicycle “fix-it” days to encourage bike riding.
13.e
Packet Pg. 231
stops for bicycle parking infrastructure.
Policy N-2.1: Recognize the importance of the urban
forest as a vital part of the city’s natural and green infrastructure network that contributes to public
health, resiliency, habitat values, appreciation of
natural systems and an attractive visual character
which must be protected and enhanced.
Adverse effects to the exis ting trees within and adjacent to the project site were studied; the proposed landscaping plan includes planting new trees throughout the campus. Project Alternative #4 as amended by Option E would preserve 114115 trees, remove 14 13 trees, including 2 one protected trees and 4 street trees, and relocate 28 trees, including 2 protected trees. Project Alternative #4 retains the row of six redwoods next to Spieker Field and Option E increases the separation of the below grade garage wall from roots.
The Tree Removal Management Program is intended to ensure the protection of existing trees and the survival of new and replanted trees. Replanting established trees causes significant impact which will require long term care plus mitigation for reduction of health and longevity. Mitigation Measure 4b requires replacement of protected trees, replacement of street trees, and additional tree planting to replace the tree canopy from trees that are not specifically protected. Additional measures recommended by City’s consulting arborist led to Option E, which retains tree 155 and improves conditions for trees 87, 89, and trees 102 and 115-120).
Policy N-2.4: Protect soils in both urban and natural
areas as the foundation of a healthy urban forest.
Recognize that healthy soils are necessary to filter air and water, sustain plants and animals and support
buildings and infrastructure.
The evaluation considered e ffects due to encroachment into the soil area necessary to support healthy trees. Specifically, the Arborist Report and September 2020 landscape architect’s letter contains recommendations regarding provision and/or protection of adequate soil area to supp ort healthy tree growth.
Policy N -2.6: Improve the overall distribution of
citywide canopy cover, so that neighborhoods in all
areas of Palo Alto enjoy the benefits of a healthy
urban canopy.
Mitigation Measure 4b requires Castilleja School to plant trees in landscape planters along public streets in the project vicinity. This will improve the canopy cover in the neighborhood.
Policy N-2.8: Require new commercial, multi-unit and
single-family housing projects to provide street trees
and related irrigation systems.
The project would retain most of the existing street trees around the project site perimeter and would plant additional street trees in the vicinity as required by Mitigation Measure 4b.
Policy N-2.9: Minimize removal of, and damage to,
trees due to construction -related activities such as
trenching, excavation, soil compacting and release of
toxins.
Impact 4-3 evaluates the project’s potential to result in adverse effects to the existing trees within and adjacent to the project site, including consideration of effects due to encroachment into the soil area necessary to support healthy trees. The project alternative #4 as amended by Option E would retain 114115 trees, remove 1413 trees and relocate 28 trees. Mitigation Measure 4b requires that the project applicant prepare and implement a Tree Protection, Removal, and Relocation Preservation Plan for each construction phase, subject to review and approval by the City’s Urban Forester. Further, this plan must include specific measures for the protect ion of retained trees from adverse effects associated with construction activities Policy N-2.10: Preserve and protect Regulated Trees,
such as native oaks and other significant trees, on
public and private property, including landscape trees
approved as part of a development review process
and consider strategies for expanding tree protection
in Palo Alto.
Impact 4 -3 evaluates the project’s consistency with the City’s Tree Preservation and Management Regulations. Project Alternative #4, as amended by Opti on E, would remove 1314 trees, including one2 protected and 4 street trees, and relocate 28 trees, including 2 protected trees. The Tree Protection and Preservation Plan required under Mitigation Measure 4b, which is subject to review and approval by the City’s Urban Forester, must include specific measures for the protection of retained trees from adverse effects associated with construction activities , as set forth in the City’s consulting arborist report from September 2021.
Policy N -6.7: While a p roposed project is in the
development review process, the noise impact of the
project on existing residential land uses, public open
spaces and public conservation land should be
evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise
levels for the potential for adverse community
impact, regardless of existing background noise
levels. If an area is below the applicable maximum
noise guideline, an increase in noise up to the
maximum should not necessarily be allowed.
EIR Chapter 8, Noise, provides a detailed a nalysis of the potential noise impacts associated with the project. The proposed project could create a substantial increase in ambient noise levels for some neighbors during construction and associated with the use of amplified sound equipment at the proposed pool. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 8a and 8b which require use of noise management measures during construction and modeling that demonstrates the sound system at the pool would be designed and installed such that noise levels remain in compliance with the City’s standards, would ensure that the proposed project would be compliant with Policy N-6.7.
Policy N -6.8: The City may require measures to
reduce noise impacts of new development on
EIR Chapter 8, Noise, identifies the anticipated noise levels associated with special events and truck activity and finds that impacts would remain less
13.e
Packet Pg. 232
adjacent properties through appropriate means
including, but not limited to, the following:
• Orient buildings to shield noise sensitive outdoor
spaces from sources of noise.
• Construct noise walls when other methods to
reduce noise are not practical and when these walls
will not shift similar noise impacts to another
adjacent property.
• Screen and control noise sources such as parking
lots, outdoor activities and mechanical e quipment,
including HVAC equipment.
• Increase setbacks to serve as a buffer between
noise sources and adjacent dwellings.
• Whenever possible, retain fences, walls or
landscaping that serve as noise buffers while
considering design, safety and other impacts.
• Use soundproofing materials, noise reduction
construction techniques, and/or acoustically rated
windows/doors.
• Include auxiliary power sources at loading docks to
minimize truck engine idling.
• Control hours of operation, including deliveries and
trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts
than significant. The proposed project would relocate truck activity to a below-grade loading and trash enclosure area. Option E deletes the below - grade loading and trash area to save tree 155 and retains surface truck activity but provides additional Sound Wall to mitigate noise. A Sound Wall is proposed adjacent to the new, below grade pool to be set 15 feet below grade.
Policy N -6.11: Continue to prioritize construction
noise limits around sensitive receptors, including
through limiting construction hours and individual
and cumulative noise from construction equipment.
EIR Chapter 8, Noise, identifies the general noise levels associated with construction and includes Mitigation Measure 8b requiring Castilleja School to submit detailed construction equipment and noise management plans for each construction phase
Policy N-7.4: Maximize the conservation and efficient
use of energy in new and existing residences and
other buildings in Palo Alto.
As part of the proposed Sustainability Plan, Castilleja School will work towards achievi ng “zero net energy” use by using renewable energy generated onsite to meet the majority of energy demand. This may include photovoltaics, solar water heating, and/or wastewater heat recovery.
Policy N-7.5: Encourage energy efficient lighting that
protects dark skies and promotes energy
conservation by minimizing light and glare from
development while ensuring public health and safety.
As part of the proposed Sustainability Plan, Castilleja School will work towards achieving “zero net energy” use by using renewable energy generated onsite to meet the majority of energy demand. This may include photovoltaics, solar water heating, and/or wastewater heat recovery.
Policy N-7.6: Support the maximum economic use of
solar electric (photovoltaic) and solar thermal energy, both as renewable supply resources for the Electric
Utility Portfolio and as alternative forms of local
power generation.
As part of the proposed Sustainability Plan, Castilleja School will work towards achieving “zero net energy” use by using renewable energy generated onsite to meet the majority of energy demand. This may include photovoltaics, solar water heating, and/or wastewater heat recovery.
Castilleja’s Sustainability Road Map is to improve energy and water efficiency, reduce vehicle travel, prioritize use of environmentally sensitive materials, and reduce light pollution.
Policy N-8.1: Take action to achieve target reductions
in greenhouse gas emission levels from City
operations and the community activity of 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2030.
The project would replace four buildings with new construction that is more energy efficient and water efficient than the existing structures which would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The p roject also includes implementation of a Sustainability Plan that would further reduce Castilleja School’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions
Policy S -2.5: Minimize exposure of people and
structures to geologic hazards, including slope
stability, su bsidence and expansive soils, and to
seismic hazards including ground shaking, fault
rupture, liquefaction and landslides.
The geotechnical report for the proposed project demonstrates that the geologic and soil conditions at the site are suitable to suppo rt the proposed improvements.
The Project Alternative design complies with the City’s Zoning regulations; it will not increase the development area of the site regarding height (which will be reduced to meet the R-1 Zone height limit), gross floor area/floor area ratio (net loss of GFA, FAR (above grade floor area), and setbacks. A Variance is requested to replace non-complying gross floor area that exceeds the maximum floor area ratio. On-site parking spaces will be increased to address the increased stu dent enrollment; the
13.e
Packet Pg. 233
parking facilities will be Zoning Code compliant with the required parking ratio based on the number of classrooms, but not ‘overparked’. The project will increase the number of bike parking spaces on the site to meet/exceed bike parki ng requirements. The applicant requests approval of a phased Architectural Review project, under Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.76.020 (g), for construction to take place over a three-year period, with associated enrollment increases at a rate not to exceed 2725 students per year.
Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community,
b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations,
e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas.
Responses:
(a) The project’s new buildings and site improvements will enhance the pedestrian environment within and surrounding Castilleja School. The L-shaped Academic building will provide a desirable environment with a library and fine arts space located in the wing facing Bryant Street and the majority of the teaching stations, the cafeteria, offices and common areas in the wing facing Kellogg Avenue. The Academic Building design will be unified and coherent, an aesthetic improvement from the existing buildings to be replaced.
(b-1) The project retains and improves the existing Historic Resource Category 3 resource, the Gunn Administration Building, in a way that demonstrates compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, by:
• Separating it from the Rhoades building to be demolished; • Refinishing the exterior wall on the eastern façade with differentiated stucco on the first floor and wood shingles on the second floor, consistent with the existing building materials and finishes, and matching the ex isting exterior finishes in material, color and dimension; the refinishing plans would not alter the building dimensions; • Adding new doors on the first and second floors and constructing new exterior stairs (with Condition for modifications to Option 1 retaining door proposal but capturing some of Option 2’s railing features – with review of final details for egress stairway to be reviewed by HRB subcommittee) to provide access to the second floor (with wood trim to match existing window trim);
• Maintaining and preserving distinctive finishes and character-defining features, including its stucco- and shingle-clad exterior walls, wood shingle roofing, and Craftsman style features; • Enabling, upon project implementation, the Administration Center to continue to convey its distinctive features, finishes, construction techniques, and examples of fine craftsmanship.
(b-2) The Project Alternative #4 , as amended by Option E , would preserve, respect and integrate existing natural features (trees) that contribute posi tively to the site, including the row of six Redwoods (trees #115-120) next to Spieker Field, by:
(i) retaining in place 114115 trees (including 3435 ‘protected’ trees, 35 street trees, and 45 ‘un- regulated’ trees),
(ii) relocating 28 trees (2 ‘regulated’ and 26 ‘ un-regulated’ trees) elsewhere on site with
13.e
Packet Pg. 234
appropriate conditions of approval to ensure survivability, and with the provision of additional trees to mitigate the potential for less robust tree growth in the relocated trees,
(iii) removing 1413 trees (6 ‘regulated’ trees including one2 oaks (#140, 155) and 4 street trees (#23, 53, 66, 67)) and 8 ‘un-regulated/not protected trees.
(c) Not applicable (no context-based design criteria in the R1 zones)
(d) With Project Alternative #4’s retention of Castilleja’s two single-family houses on Emerson Street, the existing character of Emerson Street between Melville Avenue and Embarcadero Road will be retained. Character and quality are represented in the pro posed harmonious fencing and landscaping. These will add to the residential and school character, to improve the transitions between uses; the character of the Bryant and Kellogg frontages will be improved with the new Academic Building . Temporarily, due t o the proposed temporary campus, the character of Embarcadero Road frontage will be dramatically changed, but the proposed vegetation is intended to interrupt views of the proposed two-story portables.
(e) There are no living units on the Castilleja Schoo l campus. There are measures in the EIR that address protection of the adjacent historic resource at 1215 Emerson Street, under separate ownership, from damage during construction. Construction and the installation of the proposed temporary campus will be a nuisance to residents adjacent to the project for a certain period of time, after which construction will cease and the temporary campus would be removed.
The proposed below-grade pool’s stepped bleachers would face northwest (towards the interior of the campus); pool equipment would be in an area below grade under a portion of the bleachers and adjacent to the driveway ramp; a six -foot tall noise attenuation wall would be constructed at the setback from Emerson Street with a two foot kicker placed at the top, slanted inwards towards the pool, extending 3 feet towards the interior of the project site. These noise-reduction measures are supplemented by mitigation measures related to loudspeaker use.
Finding #3: The design is of high aestheti c quality, using high quality, integrated materials, and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.
The project includes materials which are durable and have high-quality finishes. The new Academic Building will be finished with cedar wood shingles and vertical cedar siding wall system in a board and batten pattern. Window, storefront and curtain wall glazed assemblies are proposed. Exterior metals include painted steel, steel plate and picket railings, anodized aluminum window and opening framing, zinc and anodized aluminum paneling. The design is intended to enhance the character of the site and update the existing conditions, with: board form finis hing from foundation to roof, timber or composite metal decking topped in concrete, with an SBS flat roof system with overhangs and trellises to shade and reduce conditioned space, and with extensive photovoltaic panels.
The lighting plans were reviewed in the EIR and subject to mitigation measure implementation; ARB review to ensure lighting limits of 0.5 foot-candle, as measured at the abutting residential property line; with interior lighting to minimize nighttime glow; low intensity lighting for buildi ng exteriors, parking areas, and pedestrian ways; and directing pedestrian and security lighting downward.
Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the bui lding’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient
13.e
Packet Pg. 235
vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.).
Bicycle parking: The project will improve circulation for vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic and access to the project site.
• Bike parking increases from 102 surface level spaces to approximately 140 spaces, consistent with the proposed Sustainability Plan. These spaces would be provided in several bicycle parking areas.
(1) At grade along the front of the proposed library within the new Academic building, at site access driveway on Bryant Road (46 rack spaces).
(2) Surface-level bike area between the proposed pool and the parking garage exit ramp (52 rack spaces).
(3) Additional 42 bicycle parking spaces near the athletic building. (4) Long-term bicycle parking would be located along the northern wall of the pool area and gymnasium and include four bicycle lockers as well as bicycle racks.
Bicycle circulation and repairs: The project includes a Bryant Street repair station for students to use for routine bicycle maintenance and minor repairs. Bicyclists would be directed to access the campus either from Emerson Street or the corner of Bryant Street and Kellogg Avenue. Bicyclists using Bryant Street would park in the short-term parking or walk their bicycles across the front of the Academic and Administration buildings and then along the Chapel Theater to the long -term parking area.
Pedestrian access to the site would be provided from Bryant Street at the exit driveway for the Bryant Street loop and from the sidewalk along Emerson Street.
Service delivery facilities: These would be relocated below grade and away from the perimeter of the campus, accessed via a 26-foot wide paved vehicle ramp from Emerson Street into the basement area of the proposed Academic building, which would host a trash enclosure and service/loading area.
With Option E, the service delivery facilities would be retained at the surface, with a new sound wall to buffer noise.
Temporary campus on Spieker Field: The temporary campus would contain 40 classrooms, restrooms, a kitchen and dining facilities, a library, a student-cubbies building, a storage building, several storage sheds, and a maintenance building. These would be placed on Spieker Field following construction of the garage. In the final construction phase, the temporary campus would be removed, and Spieker Field would be restored.
Pedestrian tunnel: The approximately 36-foot long underground pedestrian tunnel would provide access from the garage to the central part of the campus, between the athletic center and chapel.
With a standard section of 12 feet by 11 feet (which would provide an inside dimension of 10 feet by
7.5 feet), the tunnel at both ends would include appropriate provisions for access required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This tunnel is proposed as a permanent encroachment within the 25- foot PUE located along the old alignment of Melville Avenue through the campus; the PUE would shift 15 feet to the southeast to accommodate construction of the proposed below-grade garage. The garage walls would be placed a minimum of five feet from the existing sewer line (so the sewer line would not be affected).
The Circle: An open-space organizing feature of the campus to be reconstructed in a slightly smaller configuration and shifted easterly (with the Circle’s edge approximately 40 feet further from Bryant Street than the current Circle). A driveway would continue to provide access to the Circle from Emerson Street and continue around the perimeter of the Circle for on-site circulation of buses and
13.e
Packet Pg. 236
other vehicles, as needed. The Circle would be surfaced with artificial turf requiring no irrigation.
Finding #5 : The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habi tat that can be appropriately maintained.
Many of the existing trees will be preserved as noted in Finding 2, and there will be no net loss of tree canopy. All but one tree species (Queen Palm) will be native trees. The plant species will provide suitable habitats; and include flowering plants/trees suitable for wildlife. The different planting areas are appropriate to the functions and locations – perimeter plantings, interior garden, and bioretention swales. California natives, drought tolerant and habitat creating species are selected, with an appropriate variety of perennials, shrubs, grasses and trees that will complement the building design and site.
Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning.
As part of the proposed Sustainability Plan, Castilleja School will work towards achieving “zero net energy” use by using renewable energy generated onsite to meet the majority of energy demand.
This will include photovoltaics, solar water heating, and/or wastewater heat recovery. Castilleja’s Sustainability Road Map is to improve energy and water efficiency, reduce vehicle travel, prioritize use of environmentally sensitive materials, and reduce light pollution.
The project will comply with green building energy code requirements. The landscaping will include a significant amount of native or low to moderate water usage plants along with on -site water treatment (C3) that will reduce storm water runoff and allow water to enter the local aquifer.
When removal of an entire structure is proposed, it must be accomplished through a process of deconstruction rather than demolition, requiring careful disassembly of b uilding components to maximize reuse and recycling. This approach is consistent with Castilleja School’s proposed Sustainability Road Map and their goal of attaining a LEED platinum
The mechanical systems are primarily radiant heating and cooling distributed in a concrete topping slab over decks; this uses a center water cooled heat pump in the lower level of the new building. The system includes pumps, expansion tanks, air separators, chemical feed and VFDs. This will replace the existing on-site cooling tower that will then serve other buildings on site.
____________________________________
SECTION 4. Architectural Review Approval Granted. Architectural Review Approval is hereby granted for the Project by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.77 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Section 9 of this Record of Land Use Action contains Conditions of Architectural Review Approval associated with the Project (i.e. Project Alternative #4 as modified by hybrid Kellogg façade and Option E with 14.4% parking adjustment.)
SECTION 5. Plan Approval. The plans for the Castilleja School, Project Alternative (Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative) submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by WRNS and Archirender, entitled ‘ARB Resubmission #4 with supplementary information #3 dated 11.03.2021’ consisting of 116 pages, and
13.e
Packet Pg. 237
dated November 3, 2021, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 9.
A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Development Services.
SECTION 6. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Findings.
The following findings for a Conditional Use Permit are made pursuant to PAMC Section 18.76.010 and subject to Conditions of Approval in this Record of Land Use Action:
1. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience:
A. Castilleja is a private school, in existence in its current location since 1910, prior to the City’s requirement for CUP approvals for private schools in R -1 zones. Campus modifications and operations have been subject to CUPs issued since the 1960s, as follows:
• 1960 CUP and Variance for 41’ tall, three-story dormitory exceeding R1 height limit; classrooms, administrative offices, auditorium, library, dorm kitchen, dining room, social room, gymnasium, pool, tennis courts, caretaker quarters, shop, and garage. • 1970’s CUPs traffic condition, chapel addition requiring 52 parking spaces, designated student pick-up and delivery areas, and compliance with prior CUP • 1990’s CUPs sixth grade class added back, Melville Avenue abandonment, use of the abandoned area, creation of 28 -space parking lot, mu lti-use field; TDM required; conversion of a dormitory into a library, classrooms and offices for a maximum of 385 students (154 middle school and 231 high school by the year 2000), requiring an amendment to exceed 385 students
• 2000’s CUPs increased the allowable enrollment to 415 students, implemented TDM program, added basement below the physical arts building (ARB)
B. Over nine eight years of fall and spring TDM program monitoring, Castilleja has demonstrated the school is capable of reducing peak hour trips and maintaining these reductions. Since the monitoring began in 2012, Castilleja has achieved a reduction of 28% of the trips in the morning peak hour.
C. In 2013 and 2017, the City began enforcement actions for violations of the 2000 CUP related to enroll ment and events, respectively. Castilleja School has worked cooperatively with the City to gradually reduce enrollment and lessen the impact of events on the surrounding neighborhood.
D. Project Alternative #4 , as modified by site improvement plan and identi fied in the administrative record as Option E:
a. Does not change the campus parcel size,
b. Does not increase the degree of nonconformity with respect to maximum lot size within the R-1(10,000) zone;
c. Proposes a replacement academic building to meet the R -1 Zone height limit of 30 feet, whereas the existing 34’8” tall building to be demolished in this location does not meet the R-1 Zone height limit;
d. Expands usable (habitable) basement area within the Academic Building, and replaces and slightly reduces existing above ground Gross Floor Area (GFA) , to decrease the degree of non-conformity with respect to campus GFA and Floor Area Ratio (FAR); e. Demolishes non-historic buildings and proposes site improvements and buildings that would be more compatible than the existing buildings with the residential character of
13.e
Packet Pg. 238
the area, given materials and landscaping relevant to the residential context; i.e., materials, colors, and details would be compatible with the remaining, existing structures on the site such that the overall campus would have a unified and coherent design.
f. Further improves the visual character of the site and its compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood compared to the existing conditions by:
i. reducing the amount of at-grade parking, both on-street and off-street, ii. relocating bus loading and unloading to the Circle. g. Includes pedestrian scale fencing and gates to provide several paths of ingress and egress for students, staff and visitors, including convenient bicycle parking. h. Incorporates elements that meet the City’s sustainability goals, such as rooftop photovoltaics, energy efficiency, and water -use efficiency, in addition to meeting current building and seismic codes;
i. Improves compliance with the City’s parking requirements, whereas t The existing campus on-site automobile parking facilities do not meet the code requirements for on-site parking for private school facilities. The City Council directed the project to contain no more than 50% of code -required on -site parking spaces below grade, related to the robust TDM program with ‘no net new trips’ recommended by th e Planning and Transportation Commission. Project Alternative #4’s proposed parking facilities, without implementation of Option E, would have met will meet the required number of spaces: 104 non-tandem spaces - located in two surface lots (at 13 spaces each) and in one underground parking facility (78 spaces, non -tandem). Parking Option E, subject to approval of a Parking Adjustment, reduces below grade parking spaces by 26 spaces (to 52 spaces) with associated removal of 8,186 sf of basement area, and adds 11 surface spaces to the 26 surface spaces of Project Alternative #4 – resulting in a total of 89 on-site spaces (a 15- space reduction in on-site spaces); this reduces on-site parking spaces by 14.4% associated with the proposed robust TDM program.
j. Improves bicycle parking spaces (an increase from 102 spaces to 140 spaces); k. k. Does not increase the number of peak hour trips with implementation of the Enhanced TDM program and mitigation measures. Traffic to the proposed school will be conducted in an orderly and safe manner, with consequences for noncompliance (including enrollment reductions and CUP revocation);
l. l. ``Does not increase the existing number of average daily trips (1,198) as restricted by Council action (for Phase 2). Increases the number of daily trips to 114 net new daily trips (after implementation of Mitigation Measure 7a), which does not represent a significant, adverse environmental impact.
E. The conditions of approval, mitigation measures and monitoring and reporting program are designed so that:
• Development and approval of a preservation protection plan is ensured for each phase of construction so as not to adversely affect nearby eligible cultural resources; • Tree removals/relocations will be limited as per arborist recommendations in the 2016, 2020 and 2021 reports, and protection measures to ensure survival of trees to remain in place (including tree #155 as reflected in Option E), replacement trees, and relocated trees
• The project will meet sustainability requirements and goals (including EV charging stations spaces provided and LEED standard green building); • The enhanced TDM program will be monitored and enforcement measures will ensure less than significant impacts to traffic, vehicle circulation, queuing due to
13.e
Packet Pg. 239
student drop offs, school activities and events, and parking requirements met on site with the Project Alternative #4, as amended by Option E with a Parking Adjustment of 14.4% and additional program monitoring and enforcement requirements, will address parking spill-over issues, all of which have greatly concerned neighbors in the vicinity of Castilleja School. • The noise from construction and pool activity will be mitigated and the surface trash pickup and delivery area, with Option E site improvements, will be screened and buffered with a new, solid acoustic fence placed along the Emerson Street setback to address trash pick-up and delivery noise.
• The conditions of approval for the project are intended to address these issues by placing limitations on school hours, the number, frequency, and type of events, and enforcing ongoing performance standards and the TDM program. • Performance standards include the requirement to have a designated point of contact for all complaints, provision of events and construction information, traffic data and reports on the School website, and provision of funds to enable the City to retain a 3rd party to assist the City evaluate, monitor, and enforce compliance with conditions and mitigation measures.
• Enforcement of the TDM program and events will be assured, including coordination of the School to troubleshoot issues and handle complaints in a timely manner.
• A TDM Oversight Committee is required to provide the City with guidance, should Castilleja School submit a report that contains trip count exceedances.
Therefore, with implementation of the EIR mitigation measures as outlined in the MMRP and the conditions of project approval as amended in 2022 associated with Option E and Parking Adjustment, the proposed CUP amendment will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, in that:
The School Use is an existing, Conditionally Permitted use within Palo Alto’s R-1 Zone, consistent with the underlying R-1 (10,000) zoning designation (PAMC Section 18.12, Table 1, Private Educational Facilities are listed as a use allowed with a CUP) and Comprehensive Plan designation of Single Family Residential. The project is consistent with the applicable development standards of PAMC Chapter
18.12 and parking standards of PAMC Chapter 18.52, with Parking Adjustment approval pursuant to
18.52.050 and GFA replacement (and reduction) variance. The planning Director supports a 14.4% Parking Adjustment as (i) consistent with the purposes of Chapter 18.52, (ii) it will not create undue impact on existing or potential uses adjoining the site or in the general v icinity, and (iii) will be commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the development, including for visitors and accessory facilities where appropriate.
Table 4-1: Zoning Ordinance Policy Consistency Analysis Development
Standard R-1(10,000) Zoning Existing Property Project Alternative #4 with Option E
Lot Size 10,000 – 19,999 sf 268,783 sf existing
campus
268,783 sf (no change)
Maximum Floor
Area Ratio
0.45 first 5,000 sf of lot size;
0.30 square footage in
excess of 5,000 sf
1310 Bryant existing
0.43 0.51
Proposed: 0. 428
13.e
Packet Pg. 240
Gross Floor Area
(non-residential uses and
including volumetric area
where applicable)
81,379 GFA 138,345 GFA 128,687 GFA
Exempt Below
Grade Area
Exempt from floor area ratio
(FAR) and floor area
calculation for qualifying
basements
41,406 SF 79,357 SF
Maximum Building
Height
30 feet standard; 33 feet for
buildings with a roof pitch of
12:12 or greater
34 feet 6 inches 30 feet
Minimum Setbacks
Emerson 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
Above grade: 108 feet 6
inches (no change above
grade); Below grade
meets special setback
Kellogg 20 feet 27 feet 9 inches
Bryant 20 feet 22 feet
Embarcadero 24 feet 108 feet 6 inches
Maximum site
coverage, multiple-
story development
35% (100,374 sf) 24.3% (65,273 sf) 25.3% 68,071 sf
67,894 sf
Vehicle Parking 2 spaces per middle grade
teaching station, 4 spaces
per upper grade teaching
station
74 10489 spaces with
14.4% parking
adjustment
Bicycle Parking 1 space for every 5 students 95 140
The project conforms to relevant Comprehensive Plan policies cited in the project EIR. The EIR Mitigation Measures are intended to improve upon the existing TDM measures with performance monitoring and enforcement and impose clear special event restrictions; conditions of approval related to the CUP provide additional clarity for operations in a manner that is consistent with the intent and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance . The underground parking facility of Project Alternative #4 is in accord with the Zoning Ordinance because PAMC 18.52.030(g) re quires parking to be located on the same site as the use being supported, unless a parking adjustment is granted. A 14.4% Parking Adjustment (removing 15 on -site parking spaces) is associated with Option E and includes 89 on -site parking spaces. T he project does not propose a residential use and underground parking is not prohibited for non-single family residential use in accordance with PAMC 18.12.060(e). The underground parking facility is also supported by Comprehensive Plan Policies L-9.2 that “encourage[s] development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas” as well as T -5.6 that “strongly encourage[s] the use of below-grade or structured parking and explore mechanized parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping where feasible”. The Gross Floor Area for the project is in accord with the Zoning Ordinance by approval of the Variance pursuant to PAMC Section 18.76.030 and 18.77.060 granted in this Record of Land Use Action.
SECTION 7. Variance Findings
The following findings for a Variance allowing replacement of existing, above grade gross floor area are made pursuant to PAMC Section 18.76.030 and are subject to the Conditions of Approval in this Record of Land Use Action.
13.e
Packet Pg. 241
16 1. Because of special circumstances1 applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property.
The Castilleja School campus is found to have special circumstances, in that the parcel is unique both in terms of size and insofar as it has historically ho sted private school facilities that exceed current development standards:
• FAR limitations and maximum lot size (19,999 sf) would not support the physical space requirements of a private school and were not created with conditionally permitted private school uses in mind.
• The property is unique in many respects: it is the largest R-1 lot in the City and the property has housed a private school for over a century, and the majority of existing structures were constructed well before the enactment of modern development standards. • The size of the campus (at 268,765 sf) is substantially greater than any other lot in the R- 1(10,000) zone (where most surrounding lots are 8,000 to 12,000 sf) resulting in a maximum floor area ratio that disproportionately constrain s the campus compared to neighboring properties; the formula calculates FAR at .45 for the first 5,000 sf and 0.30 for the remaining sf.
• As recently as 2006, square footage on the parcel was permitted in excess of current development standards through the issuance of a conditional use permit, without a variance.
• There currently exists on the parcel 138,345116,297 square feet of legal, countable, building square footage (gross floor area or “GFA”) including volumetric GFA (i.e. floor area that is double- or triple-counted due to high ceilings). Almost all of the volumetric GFA is located in the gym, which was approved in 2006 and is not being modified. The GFA to be demolished is 87,079 sf, including volumetric GFA.
• The proposed project will reduce GFA on the site compared to existing conditions.
Proposed total GFA is 128,687 sf comprised of the new academic building, at 77,420 sf, the administration/chapel/theater at 17,754 sf, and the existing gym with 33,513 sf (which includes 17,346 sf of volumetric floor area). The total GFA reduction would be 9,658 sf.
Because of these special circumstances, strict application of the City’s current FAR limitations would require the proposed campus modernization to remove over 55,000 square feet of gross floor area. This would effectively deprive the School of the ability to modernize its outdated structures.
2. The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or
1 Special circumstances expressly excluded from consideration are: (A) The personal circumstances of the property owner, and (B) Any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the same zoning designation.
13.e
Packet Pg. 242
17 constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property.
Except for the requested Floor Area Ratio standard, the Project Alternative #4 complies with all other R-1(10,000) development standards including building height, setbacks, site coverage, and parking requirements as met with a 14.4% parking adjustment. • Whereas tThe allowable lot coverage for the campus parcel is 1 010,374 sf (35% of the campus) and a total of 67,894 sf 72,240 sf of coverage (25.37% of the campus parcel) is proposed.
• The allowable height is 30 feet (flat roof) and 33 feet for pitched roofs over 12:12 pitch and the proposed height of the academic building is 26’11-1/2” from established grade to top of parapet (24 ’ 8 -1/2” from finished floor to top of parapet) on Section 3 as ARB recommended, and 30 feet from established grade to top of parapet on Sections 1 and 2 (27’9” from finished floor to top of parapet) as ARB recommended). • The required setbacks are 24 feet from the Embarcadero Road frontage and 20 feet from the other three street frontages; the proposed setbacks are 24 feet to wall of below grade garage that is parallel with the Embarcadero Road frontage, 20 feet to the acoustic fence running along the Emerson setback, 20 feet from Bryant Street and Kellogg Avenue to the Academic Building for portions of the building, and greater setbacks to this building from Emerson Street and to portions of this building from Bryant Street and Kellogg Avenue. • The required on-site parking is 104 parking spaces and the proposed on-site parking spaces proposed in Alternative #4 with Option E is 89 parking spaces.
Whereas the existing gross floor area on the campus parcel is 116,297sf (FAR of 0.43:1) a total of 113,667 sf is proposed on the campus (FAR of 0.42:1) which is the new Academic Building at 81,942 sf plus the buildings to be retained, at 31,725 sf. The request is not to increase the gross floor area on campus, but to retain and slightly decrease the existing of above-grade gross floor area, which is most visually impactful on neighboring properties. The School facilities will be modified to provide appropriate programmatic space for learning environments, and for seismic safety. The removal of outdated buildings and reconstruction of gross floor area does not constitute a special privilege.
The project would improve the campus open space characteristics, create code -compliant and sustainable buildings with deep roof overhangs and solar shading screens, renewable energy solar panels, high efficiency and noise mitigation glazing, natural lighting via skylights for teaching stations, durable and sustainable siding materials, locally sourced interior finishes, water efficient plumbing fixtures, graywater irrigation, and extensive landscaping.
Including volumetric GFA, the existing FAR is 0.51:1 and the proposed FAR is 0.48:1 (excluding volumetric GFA, the existing FAR is 0.42:1 and the proposed FAR is 0.41:1). Although the proposed FAR exceeds the maximum FAR for the district, this is not inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity or the zone district because the subject property is unique in its size and historical use. The removal of outdated buildings and reconstruction of gross floor area, with GFA reduction, does not constitute a special privilege.
13.e
Packet Pg. 243
18 3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.
As noted in the CUP findings above, EIR Table 4-1 provides an exhaustive list of the Comprehensive Plan policies relevant to the project review and analysis. As noted in CUP Finding #2: The School Use is an existing, Conditionally Permitted use within Pal o Alto’s R -1 Zone, consistent with the underlying R-1 (10,000) zoning designation (PAMC Section 18.12, Table 1, Private Educational Facilities are listed as a use allowed with a CUP) and Comprehensive Plan designation of Single Family Residential. The project is consistent with the applicable development of PAMC Chapter
18.12 and parking standards of PAMC Chapter 18.52. The project conforms to relevant Comprehensive Plan policies cited in the project EIR on Table 4-2 of the final EIR related to Project Alternative #4. The EIR Mitigation Measures are intended to improve upon the existing TDM measures with performance monitoring and enforcement and impose clear special event restrictions; conditions of approval related to the CUP provide additional clarity for operations in a manner that is consistent with the intent and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The underground parking facility is in accord with the Zoning Ordinance because PAMC 18.52.030(g) requires parking to be located on the same site as the use being supported the project does not propose a residential use, and PAMC 18.12.060(e) does and
18.12.090(a) do not apply to non -residential uses. The underground parking facility is also supported by Comprehensive Plan Policies L-9.2 and T -5.6 that strongly encourage the use of below-grade or structured parking…instead of surface parking for new developments of all types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping where feasible. The GFA replacement/reduction/FAR reduction for the project is in accord with the Zoning Ordinance by approval of the Variance pursuant to PAMC Section 18.76.030 and 18.77.060 granted in this Record of Land Use Action.
a. are not included in Gross Floor Area (GFA) because, of the defined inclusions and exclusions from GFA in the R-1 zone (PAMC 18.04.030(a)(65)(C) and (D)), they most closely align with the definition of “basement.”
i. PAMC 18.04.030 Definitions (15) "Basement" means that portion of a building between the lowest floor and the ceiling above, which is fully below grade or partly below and partly above grade, but so located that the vertical distance from grade to the floor below is more than the vertical distance from grade to ceiling. ii. PAMC 18.04.030(a)(65)(D) and 18.12.090(b) provide that basements shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area.
iii. Although Carports and Garages are included in GFA for the R -1 z one, PAMC
18.04.030(a)(24.5) and (59) define carports and garages to be parking facilities accessory to a residential use.
4. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
13.e
Packet Pg. 244
19 The replacement of gross floor area variance would enable construction of a seismically safe building, with a lower GFA and FAR than the existing buildings being removed, designed t o be visually compatible with the neighborhood character, with increased open space and provision of all required parking spaces provided on site, and sustainability measures. The variance is associated with a slight reduction in above -grade floor area and modernization of facilities, improving on existing conditions. The location of the Academic Building would allow bus drop-off and pick-ups to move internal to the site, and enable loading, delivery and trash functions to move off City streets and onto the school property below grade, to reduce neighborhood congestion and noise while enhancing neighborhood safety. Mature tree preservation and canopy retention and replacement is prioritized, and site landscaping and fencing is carefully designed for neighborhood compatibility.
SECTION 8. Conditions of CUP Approval.
Conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit for the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Project Alternative (‘Project Alternative’ #4 in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)). Alternative #4 includes the reduced and reconfigured below grade parking facility, retains the two residential structures on Emerson Street and the stand of Redwoods next to Spieker Field, utilizes three drop-off /pick-up locations to disburse traffic around the campus. This approval incorporates Option E places only 52 parking spaces below grade and increases surface spaces, for a total of 89 parking spaces on site with approval of a Parking Adjustment. Option E preserves tree 155 and improves upon protections for tree 89.
CUP APPROVAL:
1. This conditional use permit incor porates all relevant conditions of approval from prior conditional use permits (00 -CUP-23 and 06-PLN-15) and replaces those prior approvals.
Upon the effective date of this entitlement, Castilleja School (‘School’) will be governed by this conditional use permit and other related City actions associated with the subject application.
2. The School shall operate in accordance with Project Alternative #4 documented in the project environmental impact report (EIR Alternative #4), as detailed in the administrative record and as modified by Option E and these conditions.
3. Any future request by the School to change or modify the CUP conditions of approval shall require a noticed public hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council action in accordance with PAMC Section 18.77.060 (e) Hearing and Recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission.
ENROLLMENT:
4. The School may enroll a maximum of 540 students in accordance with the following schedule:
a. Student enrollment for the 2020-21 2022-23 academic year and subsequent years, except as modified below, shall not exceed the current enrollment of 42 62 students.
13.e
Packet Pg. 245
20 b. Upon approval of the CUP, the School may begin the process to enroll 450 students. completion (issuance of a certificate of occupancy) of the non -residential underground parking facility (Phase I), and start ing with the next academic year, enrollment may begin to increase up to a maximum of 490 students. c. Upon completion of all project construction (issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for all new buildings and facilities) and removal of all portable/temporary modular buildings, enrollment may begin to increase to a maximum 540 students. c. Thereafter, Sstudent enrollment shall not increase by more than 25 students per academic year based on the lesser of the School’s actual or permitted enrollment as documented by the School’s independent auditor.
d. No enrollment increase may occur unless the School has achieved the performance standards of Condition #22 for the preceding three consecutive reporting periods prior to the School’s sending enrollme nt agreements to prospective students (typically mid-March). For example, the ability to increase enrollment for the 2023- 2024 academic year will require review, in early 2023, of one reporting period from the 2022 -2023 academic year and two reporting peri ods from the 2021 -2022 academic year.
5. Prior to March 1 st each year, the School shall provide the Director of Planning and Development Services a letter from an independent auditor attesting to the number of students enrolled at the School, at the time of the audit, for that academic year.
EVENTS:
6. The School may schedule up to a maximum of 5 Major Events (may exceed 500 persons) and 50 74 Special Events (exceeding 50 persons) each (academic year ) calendar year starting August 1st. A special event is defined as one that includes more than 50 attendees as defined in Mitigation Measure 4a included in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP). A special event includes, but is not limited to student performances, showcase or social events; parent group meetings; admission, orientation, alumni and donor events; athletic competitions; celebrations, or other activity that brings parents of enrolled students or non-enrolled students to the campus. A special event does not include individual parent meetings or Co-curricular Programming (i.e. activity associated with the School’s daily educational progra mming). Special events are subject to the following additional restrictions:
a. Thirty-seven (37) of the maximum allowed special events may exceed 100 attendees, including five (5) major special events that may exceed 500 attendees. b. Inclusive of all special events, the maximum number of weekday evening special events, after 6pm, shall not exceed 3216 events.
c. Inclusive of all special events, the maximum number of Saturday special events, after 6pm, shall not exceed 5 events.
d. No special events are permitted on Sunday.
e. No special event during the weekday shall begin prior to 8am, or 9am on Saturday. f. Those special events that extend past 6pm must end by 8pm, except for student
13.e
Packet Pg. 246
21 performances, dances and major events, which shall end no later than 10pm. g. The School shall have special events on no more than two consecutive evenings and shall minimize the number of special events occurring on consecutive days and, for larger events, occurring on consecutive weekends.
h. All special events are subject to the requirements of Mitigation Measure 4a included in the MMRP.
i. A list of all special events for the upcoming academic year shall be provided to the Director of Planning and Development Services before school begins and posted on the School’s website for the duration of the academic year. The number of expected event attendees and applicable parking plan required in Mitigation Measure 4a shall be similarly posted. The purpose of this condition is to provide a reasonable expectation when such events are anticipated and ensure the maximum number of events is not exceeded or occur during restricted hours. Occasional adjustments to the event schedule or minor exceedances to the ending time of an event during the academic year shall not constitute a violation of this condition of approval provided other applicable restrictions are met.
j. All special events shall comply with the app roved transportation demand management.
7. The Director of Planning and Development Services may approve a request to use the School’s campus by the Palo Alto Unified School District, up to five times per academic year, without the need for a Temporary Use P ermit or counting as special event as defined in Condition #6. The School shall provide traffic management for any such events. This condition is intended to support and encourage continued collaboration between PAUSD and Castilleja in a manner that is min imally intrusive to the Castilleja neighborhood and may allow some of the School’s larger events to occur off campus. The Director may impose conditions deemed necessary to address impacts of PAUSD events on Castilleja campus.
Nothing in this condition is intended to preclude the School from applying for a Temporary Use Permit in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.42.050.
OPERATIONS-RELATED:
8. Standard School hours are Mondays through Fridays 7am to 6pm. Co -curricular Programming involving fewer than 50 students the number of students in one upper school grade level and confined to indoor spaces may occur outside of these hours.
9. Summer school programs shall be subject to all conditions and restrictions that apply to school year programs, except that summer use of the playing fields or the pool shall not occur before 9:00am. The School shall provide a minimum one -week student break between the school year and the summer program(s). The School is prohibited from renting or loaning the campus to another summer school program, organization or group provider.
The summer enrollment shall be the same level of enrollment as the academic year ending just prior to commencement of the summer school program. Each summer camp session will not exceed maximum enrollment permitted during prior school year.
13.e
Packet Pg. 247
22 10. Following construction of the Academic Building, all deliveries and bus pickups and drop offs shall be accomplished within the below grade parking garage or designated pickup/drop off areas on campus accessed from the driveway from Kellogg Avenue.
11. Removal of the temporary campus on Spieker Field shall commence within six months of the City’s issuance of a final occupancy permit for the Academic Building.
12. At all times the School shall comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance. Except for swimming pool-related activity , which is subject to Mitigation Measure 8b , Major Events, and emergencies, including drills, no outdoor amplified sound equipment shall be used on the campus without approval of a noise exception permit from the City. For the purposes of this permit, “amplified sound equipment” includes bull horns, air horns, loudspeakers, or similar noise-generating equipment. Amplified outdoor sound associated with the swimming pool shall be prohibited between 8pm and 7am. The School shall take reasonab le efforts to mitigate School-related noise complaints from nearby residents. If noise complaints are not satisfactorily resolved, the Director of Planning and Development Services may require the placement of noise monitors to collect data and determine compliance with this condition.
Any consultant costs, installation, monitoring or remedial action and staff time required to address noise-related complaints shall be paid for by the School.
The School is also subject to requirements of Mitigation Measure 8a related to pool loudspeakers and 8b related to construction and pool use . If noise levels exceed these standards, the activity causing the noise shall be abated until appropriate noise reduction measures have been installed and compliance verified by the City.
13. The School’s adjacent Emerson Street residential properties shall not be used for any School related purpose, including but not limited to, additional parking, storage or staging of materials or equipment, deliveries or student pick -up or drop-off. These parcels do not have City approval for use or activity supporting the School and are limited to residential and accessory uses customarily incidental to single family residential uses.
14. Outdoor athletic practices and games shall be lim ited to daylight hours only. No field lighting shall be installed. This does not preclude lighting for safety, landscaping and pathways approved by the City.
15. The following restrictions apply to the School’s gym operations in accordance with prior City approvals:
a. Activities are not permitted in the lower basement level of the Physical Arts Building that would cause the number of occupants to exceed 500. b. Ventilation equipment for the gym is not to be operational from 9 pm to 6 am.
However, the ventilation equipment may be operational until 10 pm when the gym is used for evening events as listed on the School’s event calendar.
13.e
Packet Pg. 248
23 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
16. The School is required to provide the following information on its website to serve as a resource to nearby residents and provide access to certain documents and information.
This information shall be posted on the school website prior to the start of the 2021-2022 2022-2023 academic year and updated annually prior to the start of each academic year to include the following:
a. A signed copy of the Record of Land Use Action authorizing the School’s use and expansion project along with the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and transportation demand management plan.
b. A list of all planned special events in accordance with Condition #6. c. Information on the maximum number of students authorized by this conditional use permit and the actual student enrollment figures for each academic year as soon as they are available, but no later than November 1 each year. Prior to March 1st each year, the School shall post the findings of an independent auditor attesting to the number of enrolled students for that academic year as required by Condition #5. d. All monitoring and reporting documents required by these conditions of approval, including but not limited to transportation demand management program monitoring reports and the annual landscape maintenance contract (Mitigation Measure 7b).
e. The School shall provide regular construction updates to inform nearby residents of the status, schedule and upcoming construction activity, information on lane closures, when heavy truck traffic is expected or use of particularly noisy equipment or vibration causing equipment. The website shall include an opportunity for the public to opt-in to receive twice monthly construction news updates by email.
17. Commencing prior to the 2021-2022 2022-2023 academic year, the School shall establish and maintain a dedicated phone number and email address to be answered by someone affiliated with the School who will immediately respond to complaints regarding noise, special events, academic athletic competitions, traffic and parking or other neighborhood disturbances. Prior to the start of each academic yea r, the School shall send notice to all property owners and tenants within 600 feet of the School’s property boundaries informing occupants of this dedicated phone number and a link to find these conditions of approval on the School’s website.
18. The School s hall host regular neighborhood meetings to report on school operations, receive feedback, and attempt to problem solve any identified issues. A minimum of two meetings shall be scheduled each academic year, one in the fall semester and another in the spring semester. The School shall provide a summary of the topics discussed and any follow up action to Director of Planning and Development Services staff within 30 days of
13.e
Packet Pg. 249
24 the meeting.
19. The School shall communicate with the parents of enrolled students the r ules and expectations of the School and these conditions of approval. The School shall distribute a transportation and parking handbook that institutionalizes and encourages good neighbor parking and driving behavior detailed in Condition 25.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT:
20. Sixty (60) days following the effective date of the Council’s action on this application, the School shall prepare a final version of the complete transportation demand management (TDM) plan that compiles all applicable transportation-related requirements of this Record of Land Use Action into a cohesive, well-organized and indexed document. The TDM plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Development Services for approval. The intent of the TDM plan is to reduce vehicle trips to, and parking demand at, the school for the purpose of minimizing School -related disruptions and intrusions into the nearby residential neighborhoods. The TDM plan shall also serve as a publicly available resource to inform interested residents of the School’s transportation -related expectations and requirements and, therefore, may include performance standards or operational conditions of approval not typically associated with a TDM plan. As required below, the TDM plan shall incorporate requirements from several source documents. The TDM plan required by this condition does not need to be a verbatim restatement of the transportation management requirements but shall include specific performance measures and criteria where appropriate and generally document the implementation strategies to effectuate the intent of these provisions. Where a dispute between the City and School is unresolved regarding implementation of this condition, the Director shall schedule a hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission for a recommended resolution to the City Council. The TDM plan shall apply to the 2021-20222022-2023 academic school year and every year thereafter, however real time monitoring infrastructure will be in place by November 2022.
21. The TDM plan shall incorporate all transportation -related provisions from the following source documents:
a. All components of the School’s current transportation demand management plan (on file with the City of Palo Alto), including but not limited to: implementation of an incentive program for faculty, staff and students for carpooling and using alternative means of transportation; annually posting and reporting on special events; and, bi-annual communications with parents reminding them of the importance/purpose of the School’s TDM strategies.
b. All applicable Mitigation Measures from the Certified Final EIR and particularly Mitigation Measures 4a and 7a (on file with the City of Palo Al to and attached to this document).
c. All applicable conditions included in this Record of Land Use Action. d. Reference to applicable sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code regarding TDM
13.e
Packet Pg. 250
25 programs, monitoring, reporting and penalties.
e. The TDM supplement submit ted by the applicant and prepared by the transportation firm Nelson Nygaard, dated June 17, 2019, which includes updated monitoring report requirements and introduces new TDM strategies (on file with the City of Palo Alto and temporarily available online:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77808).
22. The following additional performance measures and requirements shall be incorporated into the TDM Plan:
a. Average Daily Trips (ADT) Standard: The School’s Average Daily Trips (ADT) shall not exceed 1198 trips.
b. Data from permanent driveway counters placed at all entrance and exit driveways will be used to calculate ADT. Refer to condition 24 regarding the monitoring report for the ways ADT shall be calculated. A violation of the ADT target occurs when the average daily trip for a reporting period exceeds 1198 trips. one of the ADT measures using driveway counts exceeds the trip target.
c. AM Peak Trips Standard: The School’s AM Peak trips shall not exceed 383 trips.
d. Data from permanent driveway counters placed at all entrance and exit driveways will be used to calculate AM Peak Trips. Refer to condition 24 regarding the monitoring report for the ways ADT shall be calculated. A violation of the AM Peak Trips target occurs when the average AM Peak trip for a reporting period exceeds 383 trips. measures using driveway counts exceeds the trip target.
e. The School shall install permanent vehicle counter devices at the entrance/exit of all drop off locations on campus, surface parking lots, and the subterranean garage to count the number of vehicle trips arriving to the campus and exiting each day. The data collected by these devices shall be provided to the City upon request, in addition to data provided with TDM monitoring reports pursuant to Condition #24.at the end of each month showing the unmodified counts for every 15-minute interval from each location. The School will preserve count data electronically for a period not less than three years. The vehicle counting devices shall be kept in working order. Malfunctioning devices shall be promptly fixed. A device that is out of order or provides inac curate data for more than 10 consecutive days shall be considered a violation of this condition. It is the intent of this condition to also record vehicle trips during the construction phase of the project.
f. The School shall provide real time driveway counter data to the City, as directed by the Director or the Office of Transportation.
g. The School, in consultation with the Director of Planning and Development Services,
13.e
Packet Pg. 251
26 shall install temporary vehicle counter devices in the public right of way at locations determined by the Director for each TDM monitoring report required by these conditions of approval. Data shall be collected for no less than seven (7) consecutive days, determined by the Director, for each reporting period. The data collected by the counters shall be included in the TDM monitoring reports and used for ongoing monitoring and not to determine a violation of this conditional use permit.
However, the data collected may inform future action regarding possible adjustments to the TDM plan to further minimize neighborhood traffic impacts.
h. The School shall provide roundtrip shuttle service to appropriate Caltrain stations that coincide with the School’s arrival and dismissal schedule and available to students, faculty and staff. The School shall determine the appropriate frequency of roundtrip shuttle service to maximize this incentive, but no less than two roundtrips for each schedule shall be provided.
i. Special event provisions in the School’s TDM plan shall apply to special events. In addition, the School shall provide roundtrip shuttle service for all special events to encourage participants to use transit or a park and ride service. The shuttle pickup/drop off location(s) and schedule shall be included with other event information shared with potential attendees and shall also include a parking plan for each special event.
j. The School shall routinely monitor and reassess drop -off/pick-up assignments to balance traffic flows in accordance with the expectations set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. The actual and target distribution percentages shall be included in TDM monitoring reports.
23. Notwithstanding Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.52.050 (d) (1), TDM monitoring reports shall be prepared by the School and submitted to the Director of Planning and Development Services three times per academic year until the school has reached maximum enrollment , or within 5 students below maximum enrollment , for two consecutive years and has consistently met the average peak hour and average daily trip rate standards required by these conditions. At that time, only two monitoring reports per year shall be required. After 15 years of monitoring, the Planning and Transportation Commission shall review whether this condition is still necessary. Monitoring reports shall be provided to the City in accordance with the following schedule:
a. Reporting Three Times / Year
i. Report due by January December 15 and covers the academic period from August July through November October.
ii. Report due by May April 15 and covers the academic period from December November through March February.
iii. Report due by September August 15 and covers the academic period from
13.e
Packet Pg. 252
27 March April through June July.
b. Reporting Twice / Year
iv. Report due by February 15 1 and covers the period from July through December.
v. Report due by August 1 and covers the academic period from January through June.
24. Required TDM monitoring reports shall include the following components:
a. Describe in full the requirements of the recurring Monitoring Report, including TDM Plan goals and performance measure targets and data collected. b. Include the following data and metrics:
i. driveway volume counts by 15-minute increments (raw counter data); ii. the total average weekday AM peak trips and average weekday daily trips for the monitoring period, excluding construction trips, Special Event and Major Event dates and non-school days; summer school shall be separately reported and not averaged with the academic year.
iii. the total average daily weekday trips and AM weekday peak trips during the weeks per monitoring period that the campus frontage street segments are evaluated by the City;
iv. the average daily weekday traffic volumes on the campus frontage City street segments (except Embarcadero) per these conditions – raw data to provided by to the City according to the reporting schedule. v. the dates and number of times the average weekday daily trips and/or AM weekday peak trips exceeded AM weekday peak and/or ADT exceedance threshold, including any special, limited circumstances such as trips during construction.
vi. rates of use of alternative transportation (% of mode split between bicycle, pedestrian, shuttles, etc.).
vii. parking conditions (number of spaces within the garage used , number of spaces within surface lots used, extent (counts) of on -street parking adjacent to the school and in the expanded parking study area). viii. bicycle parking counts (supply and demand) and dates, times, & attendance of bicycle repair clinics.
ix. student drop-off/pick-up location counts and percentages by driveway. x. an electronically transmitted appendix to the report containing the raw data from the driveway counting devices for the monitoring period. c. Describe how and where counts were conducted. Describe any off -site data collected by an independent traffic engineering company. d. Driveway Counting Device: Describe installation, calibration methods, function and proposed maintenance of permanent traffic counting devices. Describe how records of traffic counts are to be preserved electronically and frequency of posting of this data to the School’s website for accessibility to City officials and the public. e. Include a detailed explanation of the pick-up and drop-off process as well as target
13.e
Packet Pg. 253
28 pick-up/drop-off distribution percentages.
f. Include the number of daily (while school is in session) onsite traffic attendants. g. Describe the use of traffic safety warning devices.
h. Provide a map of each parking study area, and description of methodology employed to capture off-campus parking.
i. Describe on and off campus Parking Management Strategies, Traffic Circulation Management Strategies and Event Traffic Procedures.
j. Identify scope and breadth of TDM measures utilized (i.e. programs that encourages walking/biking/transit, Auto trip reduction strategies, etc.). k. Describe other programs provided by the school in detail (i.e. organized vans, shuttles, transit subsidies) and how the mode split data was collected (survey, website, etc.).
l. Provide the number of enrolled students for the period covered by the report. m. List the dates of special events that occurred in the period covered by the report, including times, attendance, and parking/traffic management efforts and results. n. Provide copies of mailings to families regarding the parking/traffic/pick-up/drop-off policy, including traffic management for special events. o. Include a list of disciplinary consequences for students and parents who do not cooperate with the parking requirements
p. Provide the TDM Monitoring Report in a simplified, easy to read compliance review matrix format.
q. In addition to the TDM Monitoring Report, the School shall provide real time driveway counter data to the City, as directed by the Director or the Office of Transportation.
25. The School shall update its transportation and parking handbook and distribute it annually to the parents of enrolled students in advance of the upcoming academic year. The handbook shall be incorporated into the Castilleja School long range planning efforts and made part of the Board Policies and Procedures Manual. The handbook shall include the following policies and any applicable provisions from these conditions of approval:
a. At the beginning of each school year an updated parking/traffic/pick -up/drop-off policy shall be communicated to parents to remind them of the importance of the Parking and Traffic policy. Regular newsletters to parents will include a TDM section with any relevant updates to the TDM Policy. The parking/traffic/pick-up/drop-off policy shall include:
i. Parents shall be instructed not to double-park on street nor drop-off or pick- up students in undesignated areas.
ii. Traffic monitors will direct cars to maintain a constant flow of traffic to avoid queueing on public streets.
iii. Parents shall be instructed not to make left turns in or out of driveways at peak times. Signs shall be posted to indicate these turning rules. iv. Castilleja School shall continue to provide traffic monitors during peak drop-
13.e
Packet Pg. 254
29 off, pick -up and for special events. The traffic monitors shall edu cate students and parents and enforce the circulation related conditions of approval to keep surrounding streets clear of congestion. Traffic monitors will be identified by wearing a highly visible safety vest. v. Once per day, School personnel shall monitor parking onsite and on surrounding public streets. The School shall notify any violators that they must move their car(s).
vi. Castilleja students, faculty, staff, and parents shall be instructed to park exclusively either on campus, at designated off-site lots made available for School use, or on the School side of adjacent streets where parking is permitted. Daily monitoring of parking shall be conducted, and offenders shall be instructed where to park.
vii. The School shall develop clear disciplinary consequences for students and parents who do not cooperate with the parking requirements. viii. Oversight for the Transportation Demand Management Plan shall be the responsibility of the Head of School. Other staff may be assigned responsibilities regarding the daily operation and enforcement of the plan.
As the designated person or persons could change each year as job responsibilities are redefined, at the beginning of each year Castilleja shall provide neighbors and the City of Palo Alto with a list of individual contacts with emails and phone numbers. Head of School shall ensure all personnel fully understand and are trained to complete their responsibilities: A log shall be kept of all communication (i.e. email, telephone calls) and the expressed concerns which are received. School staff shall review the log for trends and respond to remedy any problems. If any neighbor feels their concern was not properly responded to, they should contact the number the School publishes for complaints (condition #19).
ix. At the begi nning of every school year Castilleja shall set aside scheduled time for all faculty and staff to register their cars, receive an I.D. tag and review the traffic and parking policies.
x. At the beginning of each semester Castilleja shall register all student cars, distribute I.D. tags, and review the traffic and parking policies with student drivers.
xi. For special events, Castilleja School shall utilize the area on Spieker Field for overflow parking, as needed.
xii. Castilleja shall continue its major transportation campaign with families to emphasize carpools and use of Castilleja buses and shuttles, Caltrain and other alternative means of transportation. Every Castilleja family shall receive information promoting carpooling and providing information to facilitate car/vanpooling in their immediate geographic area. xiii. Castilleja shall experiment with a plan for an assigned parking program with designated areas for certain types of parking (i.e. student, employee, visitor).
13.e
Packet Pg. 255
30 xiv. Castilleja shall designate a Visitor Parking Z one in the area of the Administration Building. Visitors shall register in the Administration Building.
At that time, they shall be asked where they are parked and redirected to the visitor's zones if necessary.
xv. Castilleja will continue to review its event calendaring process and develop procedures to more strategically plan school functions and their placement on the calendar so that functions with more than 100 attendees coming to campus do not become bunched on consecutive nights or weekends. xvi. Castilleja has five major events each year (a start of year ceremony, back to school night, a community building event, Founder's Day Luncheon, and Baccalaureate/Graduation) that will bring almost all students and parents to the Castilleja Campus. For these occasions Castilleja shall provide traffic monitors to make sure that all vehicles park legally and safely on all street parking. Castilleja shall maximize all on-site parking and use tandem parking and assisted or valet parking whenever feasible. Shuttles to Caltrain shall operate so that guests may attend without bringing a car to the campus area, and the shuttle schedule shall be published along with the parking plan for these events. A complete list of these events including date, time of event and number of expected attendees shall be published annually and distributed to neighbors and the City of Palo Alto.
xvii. The School shall review the parking/traffic requirements of each event and develop appropriate parking and shuttle se rvice to Caltrain. Parking instructions and Caltrain shuttle schedules shall be included in event notifications. Castilleja shall provide traffic monitors for these events and shall direct as much traffic as possible onto the school site, using assisted tandem parking, and assisted or valet parking, allowing students to use all lots after hours, using the day-time loading zones for parking, and utilizing all resources to minimize impact to street parking. For certain events as needed, Castilleja shall make every effort to arrange off -site parking with nearby parking lots and provide shuttle service to the parking locations using school vehicles to transport people to and from the school. The availability of these lots is dependent on events and cooperation f rom lot owners.
xviii. For School committee meetings which bring volunteers to the campus, Castilleja shall coordinate a parking plan and shuttle schedule that will be communicated to all committee members. At the beginning of meetings, a reminder of parking policies shall be announced to all attendees. Anyone not following the policy shall be requested to move their car. When meeting notices are sent to committee members, a parking reminder and shuttle schedule shall be included.
xix. Castilleja shall give all summer camp families Castilleja written instructions for a drop -off/pick-up procedure at the beginning of each camp session.
Drop off and pick-up shall be conducted on-site. Castilleja personnel shall
13.e
Packet Pg. 256
31 facilitate getting campers into vehicles and ensure all policies are followed.
It shall be the responsibility of the Director of Summer Camp to enforce the policies with parents.
xx. Parents shall be instructed to move out of the driveway if their daughter is not at the pick-up location and others are waiting.
xxi. Castilleja School shall develop a comprehensive incentive program for faculty, staff, and students for carpooling and using alternative means of transportation
After implementation of the TDM Plan, the Director of Planning and Development Services may, based on empirical data or other information that would reasonably impact the effectiveness of the TDM plan, determine that one or more of the above TDM strategies has become infeasible or ineffective. Upon such determination, the School shall propose an alternative measure(s) in consultation with the Director to achieve the intended performance of the replaced strategy or strategies.
26. From time to time, the City may require supplemental traffic counts or studies to be funded by the School to assess and possibly redistribute student drop-off/pickup to further limit impacts on surrounding streets.
ENFORCEMENT, COMPLIANCE AND REPORTING
27. MMRPs incorporated into Conditions of Approval. These Conditions of Approval (COAs) incorporate the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), attached hereto, based on the 2019 -2020 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analysis prepared for the Castilleja School project. These COAs and the MMRP are in compliance with Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which requires that the Lead Agency “adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects.” These COAs and the MMRP list mitigation measures recommended in the project Final EIR dated July 30, 2020 and identify mitigation monitoring requirements. In addition, the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval were identified in the Draft EIR as measures that would minimize potential adverse effects that could result from implementation of the project. This Record of Land Use Action ensures the approval conditions are clear to enable City staff oversight, monitoring and enforcement. All mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval identified in the 2020 CEQA Analysis are included herein. To the extent that there is any inconsistency between the COA and Mitigation Measures, the more restrictive conditions shall govern; to the extent any mitigation measures and/or COA identified in the 2020 CEQA document were inadvertently omitted, they are automatically incorporated herein by reference.
28. Violations and Enforcement. Violation of any term, condition or Mitigation Measure relating to the approvals is unlawful, prohibited, and a violation of the Palo Alto Municipal Code pursuant to PAMC Section 18.01.080. The City of Palo Alto reserves the right to
13.e
Packet Pg. 257
32 initiate civil and/or criminal enforcement and/or abatement proceedings, or after notice and public hearing, to revoke the Approvals or alter these conditions/mitigation measures if it is found that there is violation of any of the conditions/ mitigation measures or the provisions of the Municipal Code, or the project operates as or causes a public nuisance.
This provision is not intended to, nor does it, limit in any manner whatsoever the ability of the City to take appropriate enforcement actions, including but not limited to the imposition of administrative financial penalties. The project applicant shall be responsible for pay ing fees in accordance with the City’s Municipal Fee Schedule for inspections conducted by the City or a City-designated third-party to investigate alleged violations of the conditions of approval.
29. Enrollment Suspension or Reduction as Remedy. Upon written notice from the City of Palo Alto, increases to student enrollment may be suspended and/or reduction required In addition to the remedies available under Condition 28, the City may require that the School suspend enrollment increases or reduce maximum enrollment when it finds the School is found to be in violation of any conditions of approval, including but not limited to the approved transportation demand management plan, anticipated student drop off distribution, or environmental mitigation measures, subject to the following criteria:
a. Following initial notice of a violation, the School shall be given 45 days to take corrective action and demonstrate compliance to avoid a suspension in enrollment. b. Any determination to reduce or suspend increases in enrollment from the Director of Planning and Development Services shall be made within 60 days of the initial notice. This determination may be appealed in writing within 14 days, in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.78 and subject to applicable fees. c. A final determination to suspend increases to or reduce enrollment made after the start of the academic year and prior to March 1 shall apply to the next academic year. Final determinations made on or after March 1 but before the start of the next academic year shall apply to the following academic year regardless of whether the School has remedied any violation(s) that were the cause of the suspended enrollment. The term final determination used in this context includes the time to process an appeal, if filed.
d. Violations of Average Daily Trips (ADT) and AM Peak trips performance standards may also be enforced pursuant to Mitigation Measure 7a and Conditions of Approval #4 and #3435.
30. The School shall deposit $15,000 with the City of Palo Alto to cover all City costs associated with periodic review of the school’s compliance with these conditions of approval, the cost of the City’s consultant review of School -generated technical reports required by these conditions (including reports analyzing raw traffic d ata in accordance with these conditions), and handling of community complaints of alleged violations. The deposit amount shall be replenished within 30 days after receiving notice from the City that deposit balance is $5,000 or less.
13.e
Packet Pg. 258
33 31. Before the start of each academic year, the School shall fund the City’s installation of temporary vehicle traffic counter devices, for each TDM plan monitoring report required by these conditions for the corresponding academic year. The counting devices shall be placed on street segments identified in MM7a (Emerson, Bryant, and Kellogg). After 15 years of monitoring, the Planning and Transportation Commission shall review whether this condition is still necessary.
32. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the School shall deposit funds with the City of Palo Alto in the amount provided on the City’s municipal fee schedule to cover the full costs of independent technical review, monitoring and inspection to ensure compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
33. Reserved. TDM Oversight Committee
The TDM Plan performance shall be subject to review by an advisory TDM Oversight Committee (TDMOC) comprised of two Castilleja representatives and two community representatives. The community representatives shall be appointed by the Director of Planning and Development Services and shall reside include at least one member of the community residing within 500 feet of the School. The resident members shall serve for two-year terms. The TDMOC shall have these duties:
• If Castilleja submits a monitoring report to the City that contains exceedance of any required metric as outlined in condition of approval #22, Castilleja shall convene a meeting of the TDMOC within 30 days of the date of such report and notify the City of the date the TDMOC will meet.
• The TDMOC will review the report, determine if the exceedance is likely to continue based on the circumstance of the exceedance.
• The TDMOC will provide any recommendations to the Planning and Development Services Director and Chief Transportation Official within 14 days of the TDMOC’s meeting.
• If the TDMOC is unable to convene within the timelines above, the Chief Transportation Official and Planning and Development Services Director may act without the recommendations of the TDMOC.
34. In addition to the enforcement measures contained in Mitigation Measure 7a and conditions #28-30, the School shall be subject to the following for violation of conditions #21-24:
a. During the construction period Between CUP approval and attainment of the maximum enrollment, or within 5 students below maximum enrollment, for two consecutive years, violation of the average AM Peak or ADT thresholds provided in Condition #22 shall be subject to the following schedule:
13.e
Packet Pg. 259
34 i. For each of the 1st first monitoring report two consecutive showing reporting periods where the average AM Peak or ADT thresholds are exceeded, additional TDM measures shall be required as determined by the School. determined by the Director of Planning and Development Services in consultation with the Chief Transportation Official.
ii. For the 2 nd consecutive report showing the average AM Peak or ADT thresholds are exceeded, additional TDM measures shall be required as determined by the Director of Planning and Development Services in consultation with the Chief Transportation Official and the School. iii. If there are three consecutive reporting periods (and for each consecutive violation thereafter) during which average AM Peak or ADT thresholds are exceeded, the Director reduce enrollment by at least five (5) students or more as reasonably determined necessary by the Director of Planning and Development Services in consultation with Chief Transportation Official to ensure attainment in the next admission cycle. shall scale back the student enrollment level until the TDM program is operating in compliance with the targets; To restore student enrollment reduced by enforcement of this condition, Castilleja must demonstrate compliance with average AM Peak and ADT thresholds established in these conditions for three consecutive reporting periods. Upon successful compliance, the restoration schedule shall be determined by the Director of Planning and Development Services and shall not exceed the lesser of 25 students or the total number of number of student enrollment positions reduced through enforcement of this condition. Following restoration of enrollment, enrollment increases may proceed as provided in Condition #4.
b. b. in the event the Director reduces the enrollment l evel, the enrollment level cannot be increased until the School is successful in meeting the targets for two consecutive reporting periods. Following attainment of the maximum enrollment or within 5 students below maximum enrollment, for two consecutive years, violation of the average AM Peak or ADT thresholds provided in Condition #22 shall be subject to the following schedule:
i. For the 1 st monitoring report showing the average AM Peak or ADT thresholds are exceeded, additional TDM m easures shall be required as determined by the Director of Planning and Development Services in consultation with the Chief Transportation Official.
ii. For the 2 nd consecutive report showing the average AM Peak or ADT thresholds are exceeded, TDM measures shall be required as determined by the Director of Planning and Development Services in consultation with the Chief Transportation Official.
iii. If there are three consecutive reporting periods (and for each consecutive violation thereafter) during which average AM Peak or ADT thresholds are exceeded, reduce enrollment by at least five (5) students or more as
13.e
Packet Pg. 260
35 reasonably determined necessary by the Director of Planning and Development Services in consultation with Chief Transportation Official to ensure attainment in next admission cycle. To restore student enrollment reduced by enforcement of this condition, Castilleja must demonstrate compliance with average AM Peak and ADT thresholds established in these conditions for three consecutive reporting periods. Upon su ccessful compliance, the restoration schedule shall be determined by the Director of Planning and Development Services and shall not exceed the lesser of 25 students or the total number of number of student enrollment positions reduced through enforcement of this condition. Following restoration of enrollment, enrollment increases may proceed as provided in Condition #4. iv. If one report in a calendar year (February 15 or August 1) showed an exceedance of either average AM peak hour or ADT thresholds and one or two reports in the next calendar year show an exceedance of average AM peak hour or ADT thresholds, implement more intensive TDM measures as determined by the Director of Planning and Development Services in consultation with the Chief Transportation Official.
v. If one report in a calendar year (February 15 or August 1) showed an exceedance of either average AM peak hour or ADT thresholds and three consecutive reports in the next two calendar years (February 15, August 1 and February 15) show an exceedance of average AM peak hour and ADT thresholds, reduce enrollment by up to 5% in the next admission cycle or by up to 10% over the next two admission cycles combined as reasonably determined by the Director of Planning and Development Services in consultation with Chief Transportation Official to ensure attainment of the average daily AM peak hour and average dai ly trip counts standards. The parties will meet and confer to determine whether and how to reasonably effectuate a reduction beyond the above percentages. To restore student enrollment reduced by enforcement of this condition, Castilleja must demonstrate c ompliance with average AM Peak and ADT thresholds established in these conditions for three consecutive reporting periods.
Upon successful compliance, the restoration schedule shall be determined by the Director of Planning and Development Services and shall not exceed the lesser of 25 students or the total number of number of student enrollment positions reduced through enforcement of this condition.
Following restoration of enrollment, enrollment increases may proceed as provided in Condition #4.
c. Construction trips shall be excluded from the trip counts for AM Peak and ADT. d. Violation of TDM program requirements or transportation conditions other than average AM Peak and ADT thresholds may result in penalties as provided in Conditions #28-30.
INDEMNIFICATION/SEVERABILITY:
13.e
Packet Pg. 261
36 35. To the extent permitted by law, the School shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
36. Approval of the project would not have been granted but for the applicability and validity of each and every one of the specified conditions and/or mitigations, and if one or more of such conditions and/or mitigations is found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction this approval would not have been granted without requiring other valid conditions and/or mitigations consistent with achieving the same purpose and intent of such approval.
SECTION 9. Conditions of AR Approval.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AR CONDITIONS
1. ARCHITECTURAL, HISTORIC RESOURCES AND PUBLIC ART REVIEW:
a. Any exterior modifications to the building or property shall require submittal of an application for Architectural Review, including for any new signs. The following items are subject to Subcommittee Review prior to submittal of Building Permit applications:
a. b. An HRB Subcommittee shall review final designs for the exit stair on the Gunn Building. b. An ARB Subcommittee shall review the final design for placement of rooftop equipment. c. The ARB Subcommittee, comprised of two ARB members, shall review these details:
i. Green tile patterning detail – including the tile size and how tile pattern will be implemented (Note: provided in set for ARB 12-2-21)
ii. Detail of the cap on the Kellogg shingled wall – to show how this will be finished (Note: provided in set for ARB 12-2-21)
iii. A larger scale cut sheet of landscape lights on Kellogg Avenue; (Note: This item has been addressed, shown on sheet LTB100).
iv. Consideration for adding transparent sound barrier (panel) at Kellogg balcony per acoustician’s recommendation to achieve a 5 dB reduction, describing projected sound mediation; ( Note: This may be detrimental to façade design so the ARB can revisit this.)
v. A small level of additional study of the basement lighting using walkable light wells/skylight (Note: provided in set for ARB 12-2-21) vi. Full scale interior courtyard façade elevations – scale @ 1/18” on reduced size paper. Include in drawings shingle/band covering over sheer wall shown at hearing (Note: provided in set for ARB 12-2-21)
13.e
Packet Pg. 262
37 vii. Detail of work near Tree #89 to reconfigure staircase as per the proposed arborist recommendation (Note: provided in set for ARB 12-2-21). c. Kellogg Façade: One section of the Academic Building shall reflect the November 2021 plan set, enabling larger windows and prior proposed height for classrooms. The middle portion of the façade shall reflect the Kellogg Study (2-4-22), to retain a new open trellis and planter extension, and allow restoration of building height. The final design details shall be subject to review by the ARB Ad Hoc Committee.
d. d. Garage Design Option E: The ARB prefers a hybrid design (69-space underground parking facility shown in Option D, along with the Option E shift of Castilleja's proposed swimming pool and removal of the delivery and trash ramp/below grade service area of Project Alternative #4).
However, Council March 29, 2021 motion to allow only 50% of required spaces below grade makes Option E the staff recommended option as responsive to the City Council’s direction.
Details of Option E’s six staff -designated parking spaces on the Emerson side must reflect protections for bicycle parking and pedestrians.
e. e. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant will have to complete an interim and final review with the PAC, including review and approval of their finalized artwork and budget. Should the applicant plan to spen d less than the 1% allocation on artwork, the remaining amount will be paid to the public art fund as an in-lieu contribution.
2.TREE PROTECTION, REMOVAL AND RELOCATION:
All but three of the existing street trees shall be protected during construction (street trees 53, 66, and 57 are proposed for removal). Two protected trees (trees 6 and 13) are to be relocated. The tree protection measures must be approved by the City of Palo Alto Urban Forester and shall be in place prior to any demolition or construction. The School shall comply with Mitigation Measure 4b, which requires that, prior to the issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits for each construction phase, the School subm it to the City’s Urban Forester a Tree Protection and Preservation Plan meeting the requirements of the Tree Technical Manual Sections 2.10 and 6.30 and the specific requirements of Mitigation Measure 4b. • Protected tree s 140 and 155 identified in the tr ee list as updated in 2020 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78617 and located within the parcel’s building area as defined in PAMC Chapter 8.10, may b e removed as part of this approval pursuant to PAMC 8.10.050(b)(2). Protected tree 102 shall be protected to the maximum extent feasible and its removal, if required, shall be subject to the provisions of these conditions.
• The School shall provide justific ation to the Urban Forester with any request to remove protected trees. If the Urban Forester determines any tree is unlikely to survive the construction process, and therefore meets allowances of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section
8.10.050 (b), a tree rem oval permit may be issued to the School, with the associated mitigations previously identified in Mitigation measure 4b. • The School shall follow the recommendations related to the most recent tree protection plan dated August 28, 2020
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78616. This plan includes specific measures for irrigation for all trees to be preserved, for excavation for utilities, for
13.e
Packet Pg. 263
38 reporting damage to trees, for root buffer in locations where work is done inside the tree protection zone, for installation of fencing warning signs, for tree pruning, and to ensure:
a. the scheduling of demolition inside any tree protection zone shall occur well in advance so that the project arborist can be present. Demolition within the tree protection zone as required by these conditions sh all not occur without the project arborist being present on site.
b. the project arborist shall remain on site during the excavation of the first five feet of soil for the new Garage near Trees # 115 -120 to confirm any cut roots two inches in diameter or larger are sealed and the stub ends are cut cleanly and sealed to prevent desiccation.
c. use of a “Soil Nail Wall” for the wall nearest Trees # 115-120; as such, an over cut would not be required.
d. the face of the soil cut meets the following minimum distances:
i. protect Redwoods #115-120 with a 12-foot excavation setback from trunk bark, ii. protect Coast Live Oak #113 with an 18-foot excavation setback from trunk bark, iii. protect tree #126 with a 15-foot excavation setback from trunk bark, iv. protect trees #123, #124 with an 11-foot excavation setback from the trunk bark, v. protect tree #157 with a 12-foot excavation setback from the trunk bark, vi. protect tree #122 with a 15-foot excavation setback from the trunk bark, vii. protect tree #137 with a 4-foot excavation setback from the trunk bark.
e. protection of tree #89 during demolition of pavement, during which time the project arborist shall remain on site; further, the School shall adhere to recommendations for tree #89 in the September 4, 2020 project landscape archit ect memo https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78331 including:
i. reconfiguring the stairwell down to the pool with a switch back, to minimize excavation within 20’ of the trunk,
ii. providing irrigation over the entire root zone during construction, iii. constructing the transformer pad and DG paving on top of existing grades with minimal subgrade compaction, and
iv. placing utility line boring under roots at a minimal depth of 48” to protect the root zone or “Air Spading” the utility line at the proposed location.
OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION AR CONDITION
3. Compliance with the following shall be verified prior to the issuance of a building permit
a. Include a product specification for the long and short-term bicycle parking fixtures. Ensure proposed products meet performance criteria listed in Chapter 18.54. b. An eight -foot wide, shared-use path for bicycles and pedestrians shall be provided alongside the gym, chapel, administration building, and Bryant drop off driveway The School shall provide signs and pavement markings on the shared-use path to guide the bicyclists as they enter and exit the shared-use path. Proper signage and monitoring shall be provided to keep bicyclists and pedestrians separated from the vehicle circulation path.
13.e
Packet Pg. 264
39 c. School employees shall constantly monitor the parking garage operations during peak hours. The School shall add traffic control and safety signs to guide visitors and to enable smooth and safe site circulation. Traffic control and safety signs shall include, but not be limited to, Stop or Yield sign, pavement marking, shared-use path sign, and marking, speed limit sign, traffic direction sign, drop-off/pick-up area markings. d. Applicant shall include parking dimensions and aisle width in the building permit application plans.
e. The drop-off and pick-up area length shall be maintained in Scheme E as approved in the school’s traffic management plan.
f. Parking stalls 65 to 69 shall remain restricted during pick-up and drop-off. g. Proposed parking changes shall not reduce the proposed number of bike parking spaces and its location.
h. Six parking spaces near Emerson St shall be reserved for employees only to reduce the vehicle movements.
i. Delivery and trash pick-up trucks shall not back out on the public street.
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Note updated 4-15-22) The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application and are not required to be addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval:
4. C.3 STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11).
5. C.3 THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION:
Applicant shall provide certification from a qualified third-party reviewer that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Provision C.3 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11.
The third-party reviewer shall provide the following documents to Public Works prior to building permit approval:
a. Stamped and signed C.3 data form from SCVURPPP.
b. Final stamped and signed letter confirming which documents were reviewed and that the project complies with Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11.
6. C.3 STORMWATER AGREEMENT: The applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. The agreement shall be executed prior to building permit approval.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT: The applicant shall provide the signed and notarized Stormwater Agreement to the City. Any changes to the C.3 stormwater pollution
13.e
Packet Pg. 265
40 prevention measures that are necessary to facilitate installation of said measures will be addressed in the agreement and the accompanying exhibits, executed by the City, and recorded with the County.
7. C.3 FINAL THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY: Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, the third-party reviewer shall submit to the City a certification verifying that all the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were installed in accordance with the approved plans.
8. UTILITES AND BIO-RETENTION AREAS: Due to maintenance and inspection requirements associated with the bioretention areas, utilities that are not associated with the bio-retention design, shall not be installed within the bio-retention areas. It’s not clear if there are any existing or proposed utilities within the bio-retention areas. Plot and label any existing lines and proposed lines to determine if these lines should be relocated or relocate the treatment areas if necessary.
9. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to building permit demolition. The logistics plan must address all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. Plan shall include the following, but not limited to, construction fence, construction entrance and exit, stockpile areas, equipment and material storage area, workers parking area, construction office trailer, temporary bathroom, measures for dewatering if needed, crane location, working hours, contractor’s contact information, truck traffic route, setbacks from environmentally sensitive areas, erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented during construction.
10. PROJECT PHASING / LOGISTICS PLAN: As the applicant has demonstrated the intent to phase this project, multiple logistics and erosion control plans will be required to adequately demonstrate construction logistics and erosion control for each phase. In addition, applicant will be required to provide a proposed schedule to accompany all logistics plans. Finally, each phase will require separate C.3 certification if permits are not issued concurrently.
11. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Plans provided do not show if the existing site drainage has a direct discharge into the existing system. Provide an analysis that compares the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10-year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street right-of-way. Please provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables and Precipitation Map for
13.e
Packet Pg. 266
41 Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system.
12. 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. The sheet is available here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732
13. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site-specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post- construction BMP’s for storm water quality protection. Provide the WDID # directly on the Grading and Drainage Plan.
14. CONNECTION INTO THE CITY STORM SYSTEM. As applicant is proposing a direct connection into the City storm system, they will be required to provide a video of that storm lateral and main to demonstrate that the storm line is in good condition. Any repairs or replacements required shall be completed by this project applicant.
15. DEMOLITION PLAN: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”.
16. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace all existing sidewalk, curbs, gutters and driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontages of the property. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work (at a minimum all curb and gutter and sidewalk along the project frontage). 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.
17. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953).
13.e
Packet Pg. 267
42 18. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website.
19. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: Provide a separate Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by a qualified licensed engineer, surveyor or architect. Plan shall be wet-stamped and signed by the same. Plan shall include the following: existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes (cut and fill in CY), pad, finished floor, garage elevation, base flood elevation (if applicable) grades along the project conforms, property lines, or back of walk. See PAMC Section 16.28.110 for additional items. Projects that front directly into the public sidewalk, shall include grades at the doors or building entrances. Provide drainage flow arrows to demonstrate positive drainage away from building foundations at minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC Section 1804.3. Label the downspouts, splash-blocks (2-feet long min) and any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubble-up locations. Include grate elevations, low points and grade breaks. Provide dimensions between the bubblers and property lines. In no case shall drainage across property lines exceed that which existed prior to grading per 2013 CBC Section J109.4. In particular, runoff from the new garage shall not drain into neighboring property. For additional grading and drainage detail design, see Grading and Drainage Plan Guidelines for Residential Development.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717
20. ROUGH GRADING PLAN. Provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall include the following:
pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based on Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approved City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website.
21. GROUNDWATER: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito
13.e
Packet Pg. 268
43 habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7- 3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement.
22. EXCAVATION SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way.
23. DEWATERING: Proposed underground garage excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not permitted. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp
24. 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. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip.
25. 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 for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website.
26. PAVEMENT: Applicant will be required to resurface (grind and overlay) the full street width (curb to curb) on all four project frontages (Embarcadero, Bryant, Emerson, Kellogg). The extents of resurfacing may be increased or decreased based on the condition of the road following construction.
27. EASEMENT BENEFICIARY APPROVALS. Applicant shall obtain approval from all easements beneficiaries for any gates blocking access to any existing or proposed easements and provide that approval to the City before grading permit or building permit issuance.
13.e
Packet Pg. 269
44 28. EASEMENT RELOCATION: Applicant shall relocate the existing 25-foot Public Utility Easement (PUE) to be within the boundaries of the driveway that is proposed near the Emerson Street and Melville Avenue intersection. Prior to Building Permit submittal, Applicant shall submit plat and description of easement modification to the Real Estate Division for review and recordation.
PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Note: UPDATED 3/3/22) The School shall address the following conditions prior to any future re lated permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, as further described below. In the event the mitigation measure 4b or planning architectural review conditions of approval #2, 70 or 71 are more stringent than below conditions, the more restrictive condition or measure applies.
29. TREE CANOPY AND TPZ. All tree canopy and Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) dimensions must be added to all site plans (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.).
30. FINAL DESIGN OPTION. Option E is the most comprehensive design scheme relative to the protection of the greatest number of protected trees on the campus. Urban Forestry Staff considers option E the most responsive to the Council motion regarding tree preservation. The option E design must be included in any subsequent permit phase, or Urban Forestry planning approval is invalid.
31. FINAL UTILITY/FEATURE PLACEMENT. At building permit submittal, plan drawings must reflect the least intrusive options within the TPZ for final in frastructure and utilities placements. Final locations must keep TPZ impacts to less than 25% TPZ disturbance. These options were discussed with the applicant and are itemized in the Nov 2021 Dudek memo (see table 2 on page 15 of 24).
32. GROUND PENETRATING RADAR ROOT MAPPING. Before applying for any subsequent permit, the applicant shall obtain, at their own cost, a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) root mapping survey for the area around tree #89. This GPR condition is in conjunction with the inclusion of option E. At a minimum this shall include the paved parking lot area surrounding tree #89. The data from this survey will supply the Project Arborist and Urban Forester with specific information regarding the exact location and distribution of roots for this tree. This information can be used by the applicant to tailor the final utility/feature placement and by the Project Arborist and Urban Forester to determine the final tree protection fencing placement to best protect this tree during construction. (Tree Technical Manual, Sec. 1.00, 36) Results from this GPR survey will be used to maximize tree protection measures but may not be used to propose major design changes outside of a discretionary review process.
33. TREE APPRAISAL & SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. (Reference: CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.25). Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare and
13.e
Packet Pg. 270
45 secure a tree appraisal and security deposit agreement stipulating its duration and a monitoring program. The appraisal of the condition and replacement value of all trees to remain shall recognize the location of each tree in the proposed development. Listed separately, the appraisal may be part of the Tree Survey Report. For the purposes of a security deposit agreement, the monetary market or replacement value shall be determined using the most recent version of the “Guide for Plant Appraisal”, in conjunction with the Species and Classification Guide for Northern California. The appraisal shall be performed at the applicant’s expense, and the appraiser shall be subject to the Director’s approval.
a. SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. Prior to grading or building permit issuance, as a condition of development approval, the applicant shall post a security deposit for 150% of the appraised replacement value of the following protected species trees:
• Sequoia sempervirens (#1 & #63)
• Quercus agrifolia (#’s 16, 38, 39, 54, 55, 56, 64, 87, 89, 100, 102, 113, 138 & 155) • Transplant trees #6 (Quercus agrifolia 19.9” DBH) & #13 (Quercus agrifolia 17.4” DBH)
The total amount of the deposit for this project will be determined with updated appraisal values as outlined above. Using the 2017 appraisal numbers from the Michael Bench report, the estimated security deposit value for these 18 trees is $350,000. Due to the length of time that has passed, an updated appraisal is warranted. The security may be a cash deposit, letter of credit, or surety bond and shall be filed with the Revenue Collections/Finance Department or in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney.
b. SECURITY DEPOSIT & MONITORING PROGRAM. The project sponsor shall provide to the City of Palo Alto an annual tree evaluation report prepared by the project arborist or other qualified certified arborist, assessing the condition and recommendations to correct potential tree decline for trees retained, relocated, and trees planted. The monitoring program shall end five years from date of final occupancy, unless extended due to tree mortality and replacement, in which case a new five-year monitoring program and annual evaluation report for the replacement tree shall begin. Prior to occupancy, a report and assessment shall be submitted for City review and approval. The pre-occupancy report shall summarize the status of all trees on the project, documenting tree or site changes to the approved plans, update status of tree health and recommend specific tree care maintenance practices for the property owner(s). Prior to occupancy, the owner or project sponsor shall call for a final inspection by the Urban Forester or their designee. c. SECURITY DEPOSIT DURATION. The security deposit duration period shall be five years from the date of final occupancy. Return of the security guarantee shall be subject to City approval of the final monitoring report. A tree shall be considered dead when the main leader has died back, 25% of the crown is dead or if major trunk or root damage is evident.
13.e
Packet Pg. 271
46 A new tree of equal or greater appraised value shall be planted in the same area by the property owner. Landscape area and irrigation shall be adapted to provide optimum growing conditions for the replacement tree. The replacement tree that is planted shall be subject to a new five-year establishment and monitoring program. The project sponsor shall provide an annual tree evaluation report as originally required. d. FORFEIT OF DEPOSIT. The City may determine that trees which die (as defined above) or are not replaced will constitute a forfeit of the portion of the deposit equal to the appraised value. Any forfeit will be deposited into the Forestry Fund to plant new trees elsewhere.
Issues causing forfeit of any portion of the deposit may also be subject to remedies described in Palo Alto Municipal Code.
e. TREE TRANSPLANTING. Tree transplanting is not equivalent to retention, therefore must be carefully considered. Destinations for transplanted trees must have adequate soil volume and site conditions to match the needs of the individual tree. Soil volume should be at least four times the size of the root ball and not less than 400 cubic feet for a species that is small stature at maturity, 800 cubic feet for a medium stature, and 1,200 cubic feet for a large stature. Newly planted trees must be compatible species and have adequate soil volume to mature to full stature.
Urban Forestry Conditions of Approval 34-39 below are provided for supplemental guidance, recommendation and/or best practices:
34. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T -1, and is 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. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City ([email protected]) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11.
a. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project.
b. STREET TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION INSPECTION REQUIRED. Prior to any site work, contractor must call 650-496-6985 to schedule an inspection of any required protective fencing of street trees. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project.
c. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. Construction activity (including demolition and temporary uses during phases of construction) is not allowed inside a tree protection zone (TPZ) unless approved
13.e
Packet Pg. 272
47 by the Urban Forester and reasonable treatments are proposed to offset potential impacts. The tree protection report must be updated to include specific treatment recommendations for all trees where construction activity will occur within the TPZ. Treatments should be considered such as enhancing soil conditions beyond the TPZ and outside the limits of construction so that root density and health improves. Tree protection fencing alignments should be considered to include treatment areas (beyond the TPZ), protect groups of trees where possible, and align on limits of construction (instead of idealized circles). Treatments should be scheduled before, during, and/or after construction as appropriate. The updated tree protection report should be included in the plan set as sheets T.2, T.3, T.4, etc. The project arborist must closely supervise construction activities within a TPZ, and treatments applied to offset those impacts.
35. PLAN CHANGES. When revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction may impact a Regulated Tree, as determined by Urban Forestry staff, such changes shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect, who shall prepare a written letter of acceptance.
36. 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 Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25.
37. 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 , except to implement tree preservation measures called for in the arbo rist report and/or mitigation plan. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
38. 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 Table 2 -1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor.
39. PLANS TO SHOW PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. # 605, Sheet T -1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure.
13.e
Packet Pg. 273
48 40. Reserved.
PUBLIC WORKS RECYCLING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The following conditions are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. as further described below.
41. WASTE CONTAINER LOCA TIONS. The School shall present on the plan the locations and quantity for the internal and external three container waste stations. The three waste containers shall include recycle (blue container), compost (green container), and garbage (black container).
Please refer to PAMC 5.20.108.
42. INTERNAL WASTE STATIONS (PAMC 5.20.108).
a. Internal waste stations are required for common areas such as lunchrooms, conference rooms, cafeterias, and coffee stations. The waste station shall be comprised of three -color coded containers. Black for landfill waste, blue for recycling, and green for compostables. The green compostable container, if bags are used, shall be green compostable bags. The waste station containers shall also contain color coded signs. All dining area waste stations must have 3-sort color-coded labeled containers for garbage (black), recycling (blue) and compost (green).
Any kitchen area must have the appropriate number of 3 -sort color -coded labeled waste stations for garbage, recycling and compost.
b. Restrooms that uses paper towels for hand drying must have color-coded labeled compost container for paper towels and it is recommended to have a labeled landfill container for the diaper changing stations.
c. Signs can be obtained from GreenWaste of Palo Alto
[email protected] or call (650) 493-4894 to request signs.
43. EXTERNAL WASTE STATION (PAMC 5.20.108).
a. If the School chooses to have refuse containers outside, they will need to be installed at convenient and appropriately selected locations. The waste station shall be comprised of three- color coded containers. Black for landfill waste, blue for recycling, and green for compostables.
The green compostable container, if bags are used, shall use green compostable bags. The waste station containers shall also contain color coded signs. Signs can be obtained from GreenWaste of Palo Alto [email protected] or call (650) 493 -4894 to request signs.
44. COVERED DUMPSTERS, RECYCLING AND TALLOW BIN AREAS (PAMC 16.09.075(q)(2)) a. Buildings that house FSEs shall include a covered area for all receptacles, dumpsters, bins, barrels, carts or containers used for the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils, and grease (FOG) or tallow. The areas shall be designed to prevent water run- on to the area and runoff from the area. Drains that are installed within waste storage areas are optional. Any drain installed shall be connected to a grease containment device (GCD). If tallow receptacle(s) are to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for tallow
13.e
Packet Pg. 274
49 receptacle(s) shall be included in the covered waste storage area. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted facilities to the extent that the porti on of the facility being remodeled or converted is related to the subject of the requirement.
45. DUMPSTERS FOR NEW AND REMODELED FACILITIES (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10)) a. New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a bin/dumpster.
The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams (garbage, recycling, and yard waste/compostables) and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water run-on and runoff from the area.
b. A recycling, compost, and garbage enclosure shall be required for the project.
46. REFUSE DISPOSAL AREA REQUIREMENTS (PAMC 18.23.020)
a. The design of any new, substantially remodeled, or expanded building or other facility shall provide for proper storage, handling, and accessibility which will accommodate the solid waste and recyclable materials loading anticipated and which will allow for the efficient and safe collection.
i. All solid waste bins (dumpsters) must be located in a trash enclosure. ii. A trash enclosure must be included in the plans.
47. GENERAL COMMENTS
a. Refuse enclosure must be covered.
b. Collection vehicle access (vertical clearance, street width and turnaround space) and street parking are common issues pertaining to new developments. Adequate space must be provided for vehicle access.
c. Weight limit for all drivable areas to be accessed by the solid waste vehicles (roads, driveways, pads) must be rated to 60,000 lbs. This includes areas where permeable pavement is used.
d. Carts and bins must be able to roll without obstacles or curbs to reach service areas "no jumping curbs"
e. Containers must be within 25 feet of service area or charges will apply. f. All service areas must have a clearance height of 20’ for bin service. g. New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to reduce wear-and-tear on walls. h. Service must be provided for garbage, recycling, and compost i. Project plans must show the placement of all three refuse containers, for example, within the details of the solid waste enclosures. Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access to all three waste streams – garbage, recycling, and compostables.
The following comments and/or standard Municipal Code requirements are provided for supplemental guidance, recommendation and/or best practices:
a. Recommended Refuse Container Number and Sizes (for each refuse enclosure).
Type Size Quantity Pick-Up Frequency
Trash 4 CY 1 2-3x/wk
Recycling 4 CY 1 or 2 6x/wk
Compost 4 CY 1 4-5x/wk
13.e
Packet Pg. 275
50 b. For any service-related questions, contact Greenwaste of Palo Alto at 650-493-4894.
PUBLIC WORKS WATERSHED PROTECTION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.
48. DISCHARGE OF GROUNDWATER (PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040) If groundwater is encountered then the plans must include the following procedure for construction dewatering: Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602 or Method 624.
The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 650 -329-2598. Contaminated ground water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain system or creeks. If the concentrations of pollutants exceed the applicable limits for discharge to the storm drain system, then an Exceptional Discharge Permit must be obtained from t he RWQCP prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. If the VOC concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) a treatment system for removal of VOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system must be free of sediment.
49. UNPOLLUTED WATER (PAMC 16.09.055)
Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system. And PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices.
Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer system only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k)
50. COVERED PARKING (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9))
If installed , parking garage floor drains on interior levels shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be cleaned at a frequency of at least once every twelve months or more frequently if recommended by the manufacturer or the superintendent. Oil/water separators shall have a minimum capacity of 100 gallons.
51. ARCHITECTURAL COPPER (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14))
On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any
13.e
Packet Pg. 276
51 residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition.
Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be pre-patinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.
52. LOADING DOCKS (PAMC 16.09.175(k)(2))
(i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non -rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation.
(ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site.
53. LABORATORY SINKS (PAMC 16.09.175(i))
Laboratory countertops and laboratory sinks shall be separated by a berm which prevents hazardous materials spilled on the countertop from draining to the sink.
54. CONDENSATE FROM HVAC (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5))
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system.
55. COPPER PIPING (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b))
Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing.
56. MERCURY SWITCHES (16.09.180(12))
Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps.
57. COOLING SYSTEMS, ETC (PAMC 16.09.205(a)) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers - It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system.
58. STORM DRAIN LABELING (PAMC 16.09.165(h))
Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to San Francisquito Creek," or equivalent.
13.e
Packet Pg. 277
52 59. REGULATION OF PCB MATERIAL – EFFECTIVE JULY 1st, 2019: New requirements regarding stormwater control du ring building demolition for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) became effective starting July 1st, 2019, in accordance with the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP), Order No. R2-2015-0049. MRP Provision C.12.f. requires that San Francisco Bay Area municipalities develop a program to ensure that PCBs from building materials (e.g. caulk, paint, mastic) do not enter the storm drain system during building demolition.
Palo Alto City Council adopted the PCBs regulation in May 2019. For specific questions about your project, please email [email protected], call 650 -329-2122 or visit http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/pcbdemoprogram . The following conditions shall apply to ALL projects submitting for a Demolition Permit Application on or after July 1st, 2019:
a. The School shall complete and submit the “PCBs Applicant Package,” including any required sampling reports (per the Applicant Package instructions), with the demolition permit application.
The Applicant Package will outline PCBs sampling and reporting requirements that must be met if the project meets ALL of the following conditions:
• The project is a commercial, public, institutional, or industrial stru cture constructed or remodeled between January 1, 1950 and December 31, 1980. Single -family homes are exempt regardless of age.
• The framing of the building contains material other than wood. Wood-frame structures are exempt.
• The proposed demolition is a complete demolition of the building. Partial demolitions do not apply to the requirements.
b. If the project triggers polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) sampling as identified on the “PCBs Applicant Package,” then the project shall conduct representative sampling of PCBs concentration in accordance with the “Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition (2018).”
• If the representative sample results or records DO NOT indicate PCB concentrations ≥50 ppm in one or more “priority materials,” then the screening assessment is complete.
Applicant submits screening form and the supporting sampling documentation with the demolition permit application. No additional action is required. • If the representative sample results or records DO indicate PCBs concentrations ≥50 ppm in one or more “priority materials,” then the screening assessment is complete, but the Applicant MUST also contact applicable State and Federal Agencies to meet further requirements. Applicant submits screening form and the supporting sampling documentation with the demolition permit application, and also must contacts the State and Federal Agencies as indicated on Page 3 of the “PCBs Screening Assessment Form.” IMPORTANT: ADVANCED APPROVAL FROM THE UN ITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY (USEPA) OR OTHER STATE AGENCIES MAY BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO BUILDING DEMOLITION. IT IS RECOMMENEDED THAT APPLICANTS BEGIN THE PCBs
ASSESSMENT WELL IN ADVANCE OF APPLYING FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT AS THE PROCESS CAN TAKE BETWEEN 1-3 MONTHS. C. The following conditions are required to be part of
13.e
Packet Pg. 278
53 any Planning application approval and shall be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. as further described below.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT:
60. STORMWATER TREATMENT MEASURES
o All Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements shall be followed. o Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details. For all C.3 features, vendor specifications regarding installation and maintenance should be followed and provided to city staff. Copies must be submitted to Pam Boyle Rodriguez at [email protected] . Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. o Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during installation of stormwater treatment me asures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 before installation. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan.
61. BAY-FRIENDLY GUIDELINES (rescapeca.org)
o Do not use chemicals fe rtilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay - Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bayfriendly-landscape- guidelines-sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans.
o Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans.
62. STORMWATER QUALITY PROTECTION
Temporary and permanent waste, compost and recycling containers shall be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. o Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). o Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. o Refuse enclosure areas shall include an interior floor drain with a fail-safe valve that is connected to the sanitary sewer.
63. GUIDANCE/BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS: The following comments and/or standard Municipal Code requirements are provided for supplemental guidance, recommendation and/or best practices:
a. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water pumped from construction sites to the storm drain.
The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either or both would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or
13.e
Packet Pg. 279
54 water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule.
b. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9) Covered Parking Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system
c. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.
d. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks
(i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation.
(ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site.
e. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system.
f. 16.09.215 Silver Processing Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-ray films) shall either submit a treatment application or waste hauler certification for all spent silver bearing solutions. 650- 329-2421.
g. PAMC 16.09.205 Cooling Towers No person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system, or add to a cooling system, pool, spa, fountain, boiler or heat exchanger, any substance that contains any of the following:
(1) Copper in excess of 2.0 mg/liter;
13.e
Packet Pg. 280
55 (2) Any tri-butyl tin compound in excess of 0.10 mg/liter; (3) Chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/liter.
(4) Zinc in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; or
(5) Molybdenum in excess of 2.0 mg/liter.
The above limits shall apply to any of the above-listed substances prior to dilution with the cooling system, pool, spa or fountain water. A flow meter shall be installed to measure the volume of blowdown water from the new cooling tower. Cooling systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are required to meet a copper discharge limit of 0.25 milligrams per liter.
h. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The pla ns must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing.
i. PAMC 16.09.175(j) Traps Below Laboratory Sinks Sewer traps below laboratory sinks shall be made of glass or other approved transparent materials to allow inspection and to de termine frequency of cleaning. Alternatively, a removable plug for cleaning the trap may be provided, in which case a cleaning frequency shall be established by the Superintendent. In establishing the cleaning frequency, the Superintendent shall consider t he recommendations of the facility. The Superintendent will grant an exception to this requirement for areas where mercury will not be used; provided, that in the event such an exception is granted, and mercury is subsequently used in the area, the sink trap shall be retrofitted to meet this requirement prior to use of the mercury.
j. PAMC 16.09.175(i) Laboratory Sinks Laboratory countertops and laboratory sinks shall be separated by a berm which prevents hazardous materials spilled on the countertop from draining to the sink.
k. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system.
l. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to Adobe Creek," or equivalent.
PUBLIC ART CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
64. PUBLIC ART: The following conditions shall be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. as further described below. If the School chooses to pay in-lieu of commissioning art on site, the funds must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
13.e
Packet Pg. 281
56 • If the School chooses to commission art on site, then they must complete both final reviews and receive approval from the Public Art Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit.
• If the School chooses to pay a contribution into the Public Art fund in-lieu of commissioning art on site, the contribution must be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. • All information and application materials may be found at www.cityofpaloalto.org/publicart under “policies and documents” tab.
UTILITIES ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The following co mments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.
65. ELECTRICAL SERVICE:
a. Industrial a nd large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead -time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested.
b. A completed Util ity Service Application and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The Application must be included with the preliminary submittal.
c. The School shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility ser vices and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division.
Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed.
d. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict wil l occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements.
e. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the D epartment of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips.
f. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked for underground facility marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete.
13.e
Packet Pg. 282
57 g. The customer is responsible for installing all on -site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to California Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant.
h. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run.
Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes.
i. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling.
j. For services larger than 1600 amps, a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear may be required. See City of Palo Alto Utilities Standard Drawing SR-XF-E-1020. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Division for review and approval.
k. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct or x -flex cable must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required.
l. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the California Electric Code and the City Standards.
m. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations.
n. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the sw itchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E.
Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303
o. For 400A switchboards only, catalog cut sheets may be substituted in place of factory drawings.
p. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. B 17. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboar ds, conduits (number and
13.e
Packet Pg. 283
58 size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads.
q. The follow must be completed before Utilities will make the connection to the utility system and energize the service:
• All fees must be paid.
• All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector.
• All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. • Easement documents must be completed.
UTILITIES WASTE GAS WATER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.
66. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT
a. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures.
b. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed.
c. The applicant shall submit plans showing all existing WGW utility. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potent ially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes (existing 6” DIP water main and 6” VCP sewer main are in the area of proposed underground parking garage). Plans for new sewer mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with gas, water, and other utility.
67. FOR BUILDING PERMIT:
a. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet per parcel/lot for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). 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).
13.e
Packet Pg. 284
59 b. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes (existing 6” DIP water main and 6” VCP sewer main are in the area of proposed underground parking garage), electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be day lighted by potholing to the bottom of the duct bank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas.
c. 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).
d. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services.
e. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures.
For contractor installed services the contractor shall install 3M marker balls at each water or wastewater service tap to the main and at the City clean out for wastewater laterals.
f. 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. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans.
g. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system 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
13.e
Packet Pg. 285
60 installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans.
h. 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. Install an approved reduced pressure detector assembly – RPDA backflow preventor. The RPDA shall be installed on the owner’s property and directly behind the City’s fire service per City’s latest standard details or M-47C Drawing.
i. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) may require to be replaced at the applicant’s expense.
j. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with 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.
k. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans.
l. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connections of 4- inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans.
m. If a new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements.
n. If a new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans.
The gas meter location must conform to utilities standard details.
o. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans.
p. The School shall secure a public utilities easement for any required facilities installed in private property. The School's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels (if required) as may be necessary to serve the development.
q. Where public mains are installed in private streets/PUEs “Public Utility Easements: If the City’s reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the responsibility of the Association, and not of the
13.e
Packet Pg. 286
61 City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of the Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of the City”.
r. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures.
s. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot 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.
t. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring.
u. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater.
v. No new sewer lateral connection is allowed to the existing 8” PE sewer main within the 25’ wide public utilities easement.
w. The proposed underground tunnel shall maintain a minimum three-foot vertical clearance to the existing 8” sewer main.
x. The proposed water main disconnection/abandonment procedure per the latest edition of the CPA Utility Standards for Water, Gas and Wastewater, details drawing shall be provided to the School’s engineer during the Building Permit, Street Work Permit or related permits.
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITION OF APPROVAL
68. The Fire Department access roadway along the softball field is required to have a hardscape surface.
PLANNING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
69. Reserved.
70. The School shall adhere to the measures indicated in the Supplemental Information submitted February 2, 2021 (Plan sheets T3.2 through T3.5) that clarifies the School’s additional protection plan to provide positive treatment to reduce impact areas below 25% of the tree protection zones (TPZ) for the following seven protected trees:
13.e
Packet Pg. 287
62 a. Tree #89 (Coast Live Oak) with no more than 20% of the TPZ impacted, given proposed reconfiguration of stairwell, significant reduction of excavation, and intact central pl anter root zone.
b. Tree #102 (Coast Live Oak) with no more than 20% of the TPZ impacted, given proposed vertical shoring limiting excavation and supplemental root zone enhancements. See Planning AR condition #2 for further requirements.
c. Tree #120 (Redwood) with no more than 10% of the TPZ impacted, given vertical shoring limiting excavation and supplemental root zone enhancements.
d. Tree #14 (Coast Live Oak) with no more than 15% of the TPZ impacted, given increased planter size, plus root zone soil enhancements on both sides of planter. e. Tree #16 (Coast Live Oak) with no more than 20% of the TPZ impacted, with increased planter size, plus root zone soil enhancements on both sides of planter. f. Tree #38 (Coast Live Oak) with no more than 20% of the TPZ impacted, with significant reduction in excavation. 55 g. Tree #39 (Coast Live Oak) with no more than 20% of the TPZ impacted, with significant reduction in excavation.
71. The School shall adhere to the measures indicated in the Supplemental Information submitted February 2, 2021 (Plan sheets T3.2 and T3.3) that clarifies the School’s additional protection plan to provide positive treatment to reduce impact areas below 25% of the tree protection zones (TPZ) for the following six trees:
a. Tree #15 (Flowering Cherry) with no more than 15% of the TPZ impacted, with increased planter size, plus root zone soil enhancements on both sides of planter b. Tree #17 (American Sweet Gum) with no more than 20% of the TPZ impacted, with root zone enhancements in all landscape zones around the tree.
c. Tree #18 (American Sweet Gum) with no more than 15% of the TPZ impacted, with root zone enhancements in landscape areas, plus root zone soil enhancement under proposed paving. d. Tree #30 (Trident Maple) with no more than 15% of the TPZ impacted, with significant reduction in excavation plus root zone soil enhancements.
e. Tree #31 (Copper Beech) with no more than 15% of the TPZ impacted, with significant reduction in excavation.
f. Tree #33 (Japanese Privet) with no more than 15% of the TPZ impacted, with significant reduction in excavation.
URBAN FORESTRY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
72. Trees #89, 102, and 120 have proposed construction activities in the tree protection zone that will result in the trees being “removed” by definition of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter
8.10.020(k) and (i). This definition is expounded upon by the Tree Technical Manual, Section 1-2, to include: Excessive pruning may include the cutting of any root two (2) inches or greater in diameter and/or severing in excess of 25% of the roots. Based on these definitions compared to proposed construction activities, the applicant should show trees #89, 102, and 120 to be protected, but mitigated for because of the amount of construction activity. Provide replacement trees and/or in lieu payment to mitigate these “removals”. Alternately, design modifications (such as reducing the
13.e
Packet Pg. 288
63 limits of construction for underground parking) could reduce construction activity in the tree protection zones to tolerable (based on the health of the tree in comparison to the activities) and thereby adjusting the determination that the trees are “removed” by definition.
73. Show tree #114 to be removed instead of transplanted because excavating the root ball will compound the detrimental effects of proposed construction activities on the health of tree #102.
74. Verify consistency between sheets in the plan set. The information should be consistent on all sheets.
75. At Building Permit, include tree numbers and appraised values in the Security Deposit Agreement for all trees that will be transplanted and all trees with ANY construction activity (or a transplanted tree excavation) within a tree protection zone of a retained tree.
76. At Building Permit, show tree protection fencing that extends beyond the tree protection zone where the applicant is proposing “root baiting” as an offsetting treatment, amounting to an area equal or larger than the construction activity proposed.
SECTION 11. 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 attorney’s 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 12. Term of Approval.
All approvals shall be effective on the effective date of Ordinance No. XXXX, adopted concurrently herewith.
Architectural Review and Variance Approvals. These approvals shall expire three years from the original effective date , if construction has not commenced pursuant to the phased development proposal within that time, in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
18.77.090.
Conditional Use Permit Approval. This approval shall expire 12 months from the original effective date if the proposed use has not commenced pursuant to the CUP Approval within that time, in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.090.
13.e
Packet Pg. 289
64 PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and
Development Services
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
13.e
Packet Pg. 290
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 1
CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Introduction
Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that, whenever a public agency approves a project based on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the public agency shall establish a mitigation monitoring or reporting program to ensure that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented.
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is intended to satisfy this requirement of the CEQA Guidelines for the Castilleja School Project, as evaluated in the Castilleja School Project EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2017012052. This MMRP will be used by City of Palo Alto (City) staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures included in the certified EIR (inclusive of those measures identified in the Initial Study provided in EIR Appendix A) during project implementation and operation.
The intent of the MMRP is to ensure effective implementation and enforcement of all adopted mitigation measures. The MMRP addresses the requirements for development of detailed plans, monitoring activities, and reporting regarding construction and operational activities authorized under the Castilleja School 2020 Conditional Use Permit. The mitigation measure numbering reflects the numbering used in the Castilleja School Project EIR.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Overview
The MMRP includes three tables. Table 1 lists the full text of each mitigation measure and specific requirements for implementation, monitoring, and timing of each required action, as well as performance criteria by which the City can verify that each measure has been implemented effectively.
Where a timing requirement is indicated as “in perpetuity,” these requirements shall remain in effect throughout all operational activities of Castilleja School at its current location at 1310 Bryant Street, unless modified by future amendments to the Conditional Use Permit.
Tables 2 and 3 are formatted to serve as checklists for the City to verify compliance with measures that apply only to construction activities (Table 2) and those that apply only to operational activities (Table 3). They repeat the mitigation measure text and performance criteria and include blank columns where the City can record actions taken to verify mitigation measure implementation and attainment of the identified performance criteria. These checklists will be incorporated into the project file maintained by the City’s Department of Planning and Community Environment and available for public review.
13.f
Packet Pg. 291
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 2
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
EIR MITIGATION MEASURES
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Mitigation Measure 4a: The Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit shall include the following restrictions for onsite special events:
1. A special event is an event that is separate from the school’s daily educational programs and includes a
minimum of 50 guests. When a special event is held
during instructional hours and related school programing, students and staff already onsite are not considered
guests. When a special event is held outside of
instructional hours and related school programming, all attendees (including students and staff) are considered guests.
2. There shall be a maximum of 90 special events each year, which includes 5 Major Events, defined as events that
bring almost all students and parents to the Castilleja campus.
3. No special events may occur on campus on Sundays.
4. Athletic competitions of any size may occur only on
weekdays and shall be complete by 8 pm.
5. For special events that occur during instructional hours and related school programming and have between 50
Implementation:
City of Palo Alto to ensure
requirements included in
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Castilleja School to ensure special
event schedules, sizes, and
parking plans comply with the
requirements
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
At time of CUP approval –
requirements included in CUP
In perpetuity – adhere to special
events requirements
In perpetuity – parking plans
submitted to City prior to onsite
special events
No more than 90 special events are
held in any calendar year.
No onsite events are held on
Sundays
All athletic competitions occur on
weekdays and end by 8 p.m.
A parking plan is prepared and
submitted to the City prior to each
event. A single parking plan may be
prepared to apply to more than one
event, when those events occur in
similar time periods and have similar
attendance (e.g., a single plan that
applies to multiple events held during
instructional hours and related school
programming with between 50 and
80 guests; a separate single plan that
applies to multiple events held
outside of instructional hours and
related school programing and have
fewer than 160 guests). Such plan(s)
would be submitted for City review
13.f
Packet Pg. 292
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 3
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
and 80 guests, Castilleja shall prepare a parking plan
identifying the amount of on-site parking not used by
students and staff (in the below-grade parking garage, on Spieker Field, and within surface parking lots), the amount of on-street parking available around the project site’s frontage on Kellogg Avenue and Emerson Street,
additional on-street parking opportunities in the
neighborhood, and nearby park and ride parking lots that guests could use to facilitate ride sharing.
6. For events that occur during instructional hours and related school programing and have more than 80 guests, Castilleja shall prepare a parking plan identifying the amount of on-site parking not used by students and staff as well as use best efforts to park at one or more satellite parking locations, if available, sufficient to provide at least one parking space for every 1.3 guests and provide
shuttle service for guests using those locations. Further, Castilleja shall retain traffic monitors to help direct event traffic to appropriate parking locations.
7. For events that occur outside of instructional hours and related school programing and have fewer than 160
guests, all parking shall occur on-site.
8. For events that occur outside of instructional hours and related school programing and have more than 160
guests, Castilleja shall prepare a parking plan identifying the amount of on-site parking not used by students and
staff as well as use best efforts to park at one or more satellite parking locations, if available, sufficient to provide at least one parking space for every 1.3 guests and
provide shuttle service for guests using those locations. and approval once annually prior to
the first event intended to be covered
by that plan and thereafter applied to
multiple events (with similar timing
and attendance) without additional
City review and approval. This does
not preclude Castilleja from preparing
additional plans for events with
similar timing and attendance within
the same calendar year.
Castilleja implements approved
parking plan, utilizes traffic monitors,
and provides shuttle service during
events (if required based on the size
and timing of the event)
City or third-party compliance monitor
conducts occasional field inspections
to verify adherence to
conditions/restrictions of the CUP
13.f
Packet Pg. 293
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 4
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
Further, Castilleja shall retain traffic monitors to help direct event traffic to appropriate parking locations.
Mitigation Measure 4b: Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits for each construction phase, Castilleja School shall submit to the City Arborist a Tree Protection and Preservation Plan meeting the requirements of the Tree Technical Manual Sections 2.10 and 6.30. This shall include an inventory of the species, size, and condition of all trees within 50 feet of the construction area. The Tree Protection, Removal, and Relocation Plan must identify the regulatory status of each tree based on the tree size at the time this plan is prepared for each construction phase. For the regulated trees to be retained in place, the Tree Protection and Preservation Plan must identify specific tree protection measures to be in place during construction, consistent with Section 8.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Tree protection measures for unregulated trees must also be identified.
For all trees to be removed, the Tree Protection and Preservation Plan must identify their species and size and identify specific locations where new tree planting would occur to replace the removed trees. For trees that are protected under the Municipal Code, replacement planting must include trees of the same species as the protected tree to be removed, and must include sufficient new trees to replace the tree canopy consistent with the replanting ratios identified in Tree Technical Manual Table 3-1 based on the size of the tree at the time of removal or relocation.
For trees that are not protected under the Municipal Code, replacement planting must be sufficient to provide no net loss of tree canopy after 10 years. If it is not possible to plant all required replacement trees onsite, the requirements of Section 3.15 of the Tree Technical Manual shall apply, allowing for tree replacement using the Tree Value Replacement Standard in Tree Technical Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
Prior to issuance of demolition,
grading, and/or building permits for
each construction phase – submit
Tree Protection and Preservation
Plan, implement all pre-
construction tree protection
measures identified in the
approved plan, and submit
Verification of Tree Protection
Report
During construction – Conduct
monthly inspections and submit
Monthly Inspection Report
Five years following completion of
each construction phase – Monitor
all trees (retained, relocated,
newly planted) and submit annual
reports
Additional five years after
subsequent replanting – for
All tree protection, removal, planting,
and monitoring complies with the
Tree Technical Manual
Tree Protection and Preservation
Plan submitted to City for review and
approval for each construction phase
All identified pre-construction tree
protection measures are
implemented, as documented in a
Verification of Tree Protection Report
submitted to City prior to issuance of
a grading permit
Routine inspections and monitoring
are conducted throughout each
construction phase and documented
in Monthly Inspection Reports filed
with the City
All retained, relocated, and planted
trees are monitored for five (5) years
from completion of the construction
phase; annual reports are filed.
Any trees that do not survive the
initial five (5) year monitoring are
replaced and monitored for five (5)
13.f
Packet Pg. 294
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 5
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
Manual Section 3.25, and for that sum of money to be used in the following order of preference, as approved by the Director: (1) to provide additional trees elsewhere on the site; (2) to add or replace street trees or other public landscaping in the vicinity, or (3) to add trees or other landscaping to other City property.
For trees to be relocated, the Tree Protection and Preservation Plan must identify the specific methods for tree removal, storage, and replanting for each individual tree, including the location where the tree would be replanted and when that replanting would occur. Because tree relocation shortens a tree’s lifespan, replacement planting is required for all relocated trees consistent with the Tree Technical Manual Table 3-1 (and Section 3.15 if some replacement trees cannot be planted onsite). The relocated tree shall be included as one of the required replacement trees.
For example, if the Tree Canopy Replacement Standard would require planting three trees, the applicant would replant the relocated tree and two new trees.
Following City approval of the Tree Protection and Preservation Plan but prior to issuance of demolition, grading, or building permits, the project applicant shall implement all pre-construction tree protection measures identified in the approved plan (such as mulching, pruning, irrigation, and installation of tree protection fencing). The project arborist shall inspect and review the installed tree protection measures and submit to the City a Verification of Tree Protection Report, consistent with Tree Technical Manual Section 2.15B. Throughout all construction activities, the project arborist shall conduct routine inspections and monitoring to ensure all pre-construction tree protection measures are being maintained and all specific construction methods to minimize tree impacts are monitoring additional replanting if
needed
years from the date of planting;
annual reports are filed
13.f
Packet Pg. 295
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 6
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
being implemented. The project arborist shall file a Monthly Inspection Report, as defined in the Tree Technical Manual.
All retained, relocated, and newly planted trees shall be monitored for a period of five years after planting/replanting to ensure they have successfully established. Should any trees not survive, they shall be replaced and monitored for a period of five years.
Mitigation Measures 7a and 7b (see Transportation section below) Mitigation Measures 8a and 8b (see Noise section below)
AESTHETICS
Mitigation Measure 5a: Prior to issuance of building permits for each construction phase, Castilleja School shall submit a lighting plan that identifies the specific light fixtures to be used and their proposed locations. The lighting plan shall also identify the expected light levels within the property and at the property boundaries. The lighting plans must demonstrate compliance with the criteria identified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
18.23.030. This includes requirements such as spillover reduction; use of high pressure sodium and metal halide as permitted light sources; lighting limits of 0.5 foot-candle, as measured at the abutting residential property line; designing interior lighting to minimize nighttime glow; using low intensity lighting for building exteriors, parking areas, and pedestrian ways; and directing pedestrian and security lighting downward.
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
Prior to issuance of building
permits for each construction
phase – lighting plan submitted
Prior to issuance of certificate of
occupancy – verification lighting
installed in accordance with
approved plan
Lighting plans comply with Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.23.030
Installed lighting comports with
lighting plans
13.f
Packet Pg. 296
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 7
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure 6a: A protection plan shall be implemented for the Administration/Chapel Theater building and the residence at 1215 Emerson Street during proposed new construction and renovation activities to prevent damage to these structures. A clear and concise preservation protection plan shall be developed to provide these details. The protection plan shall be prepared by a qualified historic preservation specialist and shall be appended to the final set of construction plans for each construction phase.
At a minimum, the protection plan shall include the following:
Protective fencing shall be installed approximately 15 feet from the perimeter of the Administration/Chapel Theater building and from the southern and eastern property lines of the residence at 1215 Emerson Street, or a lesser
distance if recommended by a qualified historic
preservation specialist. All construction workers shall be instructed to keep all people, materials, and equipment outside of the areas surrounded by protective fencing. The protective fencing shall consist of brightly-colored mesh fencing at least four feet in height. The mesh shall be mounted on six-foot tall poles, with at least two feet below ground, and spaced a maximum of six feet apart.
Material and equipment delivery and stockpile areas shall be identified on the protection plan, and shall be located as far as practicable from the Administration/Chapel
Theater building and the residence at 1215 Emerson
Street.
If cranes are used to install buildings or building
components, no materials or structures shall be
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
Prior to issuance of grading,
demolition, and/or building permits
for each construction phase –
Protection plan submitted for City
review and approval
During all construction activity –
Protection plan implemented
Protection plan identifies location and
specifications for protective fencing,
equipment delivery and stockpile
areas, crane locations and usage
controls, demolition equipment and
control within 25 feet of the
Administration/Chapel building, and
dust control.
Known historic resources are not
damaged during construction
13.f
Packet Pg. 297
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 8
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
suspended above or within 30 feet measured horizontally from the exterior walls of the Administration/Chapel
Theater building and the residence at 1215 Emerson
Street.
For demolition of the existing Classroom building, the protection plan shall document the specific nature of
demolition activities that would occur on any portion of the building that touches or is within 25 feet of the
Administration/Chapel Theater building and provide
recommendations for equipment usage and demolition
techniques that will avoid adverse effects to the
Administration/Chapel Theater building.
The protection plan shall prescribe measures for
containment of dust during demolition, excavation, and
construction. This may include wetting soils and materials to prevent wind-blown dust; covering exposed materials, soil, and unfinished buildings; and use of temporary
barriers to prevent any wind-blown dust from reaching
historic structures.
Mitigation Measure 6b: Prior to initiation of construction for each construction phase, all construction crew members, consultants, and other personnel shall receive project-specific Cultural Resource Awareness training. The training shall be conducted in coordination with qualified cultural resource specialists and shall inform project personnel of the potential to encounter sensitive archaeological material. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities for the proposed project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
Prior to commencement of ground
disturbing activities for each
Verification that Cultural Resource
Awareness training was provided to
all construction crew members,
consultants, and other personnel is
provided to the City through submittal
of training materials (videos and/or
handouts) and dated attendance logs
for each training session
If any cultural resources are
encountered, ground disturbance is
13.f
Packet Pg. 298
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 9
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether additional study is warranted. Prehistoric archaeological deposits may be indicated by the presence of discolored or dark soil, fire-affected material, concentrations of fragmented or whole marine shell, burned or complete bone, non- local lithic materials, or the characteristic observed to be atypical of the surrounding area. Common prehistoric artifacts may include modified or battered lithic materials; lithic or bone tools that appeared to have been used for chopping, drilling, or grinding; projectile points; fired clay ceramics or non-functional items; and other items. Historic-age deposits are often indicated by the presence of glass bottles and shards, ceramic material, building or domestic refuse, ferrous metal, or old features such as concrete foundations or privies. Depending upon the significance of the find under CEQA (14 CCR 15064.5(f); PRC Section 21082), the
archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery may be warranted and would be implemented if recommended by the qualified
archeologist.
construction phase – construction
crew training
Throughout all ground disturbing
activities – construction crew halts
work to allow for evaluation of any
discovered cultural resources
halted, the resource is evaluated,
and any treatment recommendations
made by a qualified archeologist are
implemented
TRANSPORTATION
Mitigation Measure 7a: Castilleja School shall implement the proposed enhanced Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan (Appendix B) to reduce the average daily trips and maintain a maximum peak hour trip volume. The measures currently listed in the TDM plan are expected to reduce daily traffic by between 12 and 22 percent. Through the ongoing monitoring and reporting described in this measure, Castilleja School and the City will identify the effectiveness of the TDM measures and any need to Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
TDM plan is implemented during
construction and in perpetuity
Driveway vehicle count equipment is
installed prior to issuance of
certificates of occupancy
Throughout construction, driveway
counts and monitoring reports
13.f
Packet Pg. 299
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 10
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
modify their implementation and/or add new TDM measures sufficient to:
maintain a maximum average daily trip count of 1,296
trips starting two years after construction of the Academic building is complete and through all subsequent years,
maintain a maximum average daily AM Peak Hour trip
count of 440 trips, and
ensure that vehicle queues for each drop of location are fully contained within the project site such that no cars are queuing on or blocking the vehicle lane or the bike lane on any adjacent public street.
Castilleja School shall conduct routine traffic monitoring and submit monitoring reports to the City three times per year until the school has reached its maximum enrollment for two consecutive years and has attained the average peak hour and average daily trip standards. After that time, only two monitoring reports per year shall be required. As part of the monitoring, Castilleja shall install traffic counting devices at each project site driveway and submit the raw data along with a data summary and analysis in the monitoring reports. The analysis shall also include reporting of drop-off lane discharge rates, and the average and maximum lengths of ingress and egress queues in the four 15-minute increments prior to the first bell for each grade level (start of the first class session of the day) and the 15-minute increment following the first bell for the grade level(s) with the latest start time each day.
Student enrollment at Castilleja School shall increase by no more than 27 students in any academic year. In the period between commencement of construction and attainment of the maximum During construction – install
driveway vehicle count
equipment
In perpetuity beginning
during construction –
implement TDM plan,
conduct monitoring and
reporting, conduct active
traffic management
demonstrate that average AM peak
hour traffic volumes are 440 trips or
less, not including days on which
special events are held
Throughout construction and for two
years following completion of the
Academic building, three monitoring
reports are submitted to the City in
each academic year (generally every
3 months, beginning approximately 3
months after the first day of school
for that year)
Once full enrollment is reached for
two consecutive years and the
average peak hour and average daily
trip standards are achieved, two
monitoring reports are submitted to
the City in each academic year
(generally every 4.5 months,
beginning approximately 4.5 months
after the first day of school for that
year)
Beginning at the start of the third
academic year after completing the
Academic building, driveway counts
and monitoring reports demonstrate
that average AM peak hour traffic
volumes are 440 trips or less and
average daily traffic volumes are
13.f
Packet Pg. 300
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 11
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
enrollment level, if the peak hour standard is not achieved additional TDM measures shall be implemented as follows:
1st report showing an average daily AM peak hour trip count above 440 - add an additional TDM measure
2nd consecutive report showing an average daily AM
peak hour trip count above 440 – add a more intensive
TDM measure
3rd consecutive report showing an average daily AM peak hour trip count above 440 - reduce enrollment by at least 5 students, or more as determined necessary by the City to ensure attainment of the average daily AM peak hour
standard, in next admission cycle.
In the period between commencement of construction and two years following completion of the Academic building, daily trip counts shall be monitored and reported for informational purposes.
Beginning two years following completion of the Academic building, if the peak hour and daily trip standards are not achieved, additional TDM measures shall be implemented as follows:
1st report showing an average daily AM peak hour trip count above 440 and/or average daily trip count above
1,296 - add an additional TDM measure
2nd consecutive report showing an average daily AM
peak hour trip count above 440 and/or average daily trip count above 1,296 – add a more intensive TDM measure
1,296 trips or less, not including days
on which special events are held
If a monitoring report demonstrates
that the average AM peak hour and
average daily trip (when applicable)
standards were exceeded during that
monitoring/reporting period,
additional TDM measures are
implemented in the subsequent
monitoring/reporting period
If applicable standards are exceeded
in all three (or two, where applicable)
monitoring/reporting periods,
enrollment is reduced for the
following academic year
Active traffic management is
implemented as identified in the
Garage Circulation Plan, or
subsequent plans approved by the
City, during all drop-off and pick-up
periods and during special events
with more than 75 guests.
13.f
Packet Pg. 301
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 12
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
3rd consecutive report showing an average daily AM peak hour trip count above 440 and/or average daily trip count above 1,296 - reduce enrollment by at least 5 students, or more as determined necessary by the City to ensure
attainment of the average daily AM peak hour and
average daily trip count standards, in next admission
cycle.
1st and/or 2nd reports in the subsequent year showing an average daily AM peak hour trip count above 440 and/or
average daily trip count above 1,296 – implement more
intensive TDM measures
3rd report in the subsequent year showing an average
daily AM peak hour trip count above 440 and/or average
daily trip count above 1,296 – reduce enrollment in the next admission cycle by at least 10% or more as
determined necessary by the City to ensure attainment of the average daily AM peak hour and average daily trip
count standards.
Castilleja School shall conduct active traffic management as identified in the Garage Circulation Plan (Figure 3-12), or subsequent plans approved by the City, during all drop-off and pick-up periods and during special events with more than 75 guests. This includes having 7 school staff members stationed along the drop-off/pick-up queues to direct vehicle and pedestrian movements into, within, and exiting the garage. Traffic entering or exiting the project site driveways on Bryant Street shall be restricted to right-turns; traffic exiting the parking garage onto Emerson Street shall also be restricted to right-turns. Traffic management staff shall direct vehicles to loop around the school if they are approaching a project site driveway where there is a
13.f
Packet Pg. 302
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 13
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
queue that would not permit the vehicle to completely exit the public right-of-way. As part of the traffic monitoring and reporting, Castilleja shall instruct the traffic management staff to report any excessive vehicle queues, safety concerns, or other concerns or recommendations to improve safety and circulation to the administration. These staff reports and Castilleja’s response to each shall be summarized in the traffic monitoring reports.
As described in the TDM plan (Appendix B), Castilleja School shall implement some or all of the following measures sufficient to attain the average peak hour and average daily trip standards:
1. late afternoon shuttle departures
2. off-site drop-off/pick-up area
3. expanded carpool/trip planning program
4. additional off-site parking
5. parking/carpool incentives program for employees
6. alternative transportation information
7. bike tune-up day and on-site repair stations
8. Guaranteed Ride Home program
9. on-site car or bike sharing program
10. provide transit passes
11. mandatory ridesharing
12. other TDM measures developed by Castilleja in
coordination with the City of Palo Alto (City), including the
13.f
Packet Pg. 303
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 14
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
monitoring and enforcement provisions identified in
Appendix B.
In addition, Castilleja School shall modify the proposed enhanced TDM plan to include the following
13. Educate staff, students, and families regarding the importance of an efficient and safe student drop-off
operation to prevent excessive queuing in the garage.
14. Provide staff, students, and families with required drop- off/pick-up and parking procedures to include that drop-off and pick-up must occur in the garage unless there are
extenuating circumstances, daily parking for parents or other community members attending meetings or other
activities onsite shall occur within the garage or on-site surface parking lots, outside of special events.
15. Conduct ongoing monitoring of drop-off lane discharge rates and ingress and egress queues.
16. If vehicle queues are causing spillover into the public right of way on Bryant Street, modify the drop-off procedures and TDM program to include greater staggering of bell
schedules or other strategies that would decrease vehicle trips or otherwise spread out the number of peak hour
vehicle trips accessing the underground garage.
17. Provide bicycle safety education for students, parents, and staff to encourage students and staff to ride bicycles to and from school.
18. Host school-wide bicycle encouragement events (such as competitions, incentives, and other fun events) to support biking, walking, carpooling, and transit use so that the
13.f
Packet Pg. 304
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 15
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
school community understands that active transportation is a community-held value.
Mitigation Measure 7b: Castilleja School shall maintain vegetation within 40 feet of the school’s driveways onto public streets such that vegetation is trimmed down to a height of less than three feet and trees trimmed up so that nothing hangs below a height of seven feet from the surface of the roadway. Vegetation shall be trimmed no less once per month. Castilleja School shall provide the City with evidence of a landscaping management plan or active landscape maintenance contract annually. Castilleja School and the City shall provide curb markings to prohibit on- street parking within 35 feet of each driveway.
Implementation:
City of Palo Alto provide curb
markings
Castilleja School maintain
vegetation
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing: In perpetuity beginning
during construction
No vegetation within 40 feet of
school’s driveways onto public
streets is present between three feet
and seven feet from the surface of
the roadway
Evidence of landscaping
management plan or active
landscape maintenance contract is
submitted to the City annually
Curb markings are maintained at all
times
NOISE
Mitigation Measure 4a (see Land Use and Planning section above) Mitigation Measure 8a: Prior to issuance of a building permit for the outdoor pool, Castilleja School shall submit to the City a technical analysis documenting the specific loudspeaker equipment proposed for use at the pool, the locations and positioning of speakers, and the likely noise levels for each of the receptor locations evaluated in the Environmental Noise Study for the proposed Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit
Amendment and Master Plan. The technical analysis shall demonstrate that use of the loudspeaker would not generate noise levels that are more than 6 dB greater than existing noise levels Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing: Prior to issuance of building
permit for pool
Technical analysis submitted to City
identifying specific loudspeaker
equipment and locations and
positions of speakers
Use of the loudspeaker does not
generate noise levels that are more
than 6 dB greater than existing noise
levels
13.f
Packet Pg. 305
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 16
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
Mitigation Measure 8b: Prior to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits for each construction phase, Castilleja School shall submit to the City a technical analysis of the noise levels that could be generated during construction and
recommended measures to ensure that noise levels during construction meet the City’s standards. This analysis must include and be based on a list of the construction equipment proposed to be used (including horsepower), a schedule for the use of each piece of equipment during that phase, and the general location where each piece of equipment would operate. Noise reduction measures may include modifying the equipment list, restrictions on the number of individual pieces of equipment that may be used at one time, modifying the location of individual pieces of equipment, providing shielding for individual pieces of equipment, use of temporary noise attenuation barriers, and/or other measures that are demonstrated to be sufficient to ensure that the maximum noise level at the property boundary would remain at or below 110 dB and increases in hourly noise levels at the property boundary would not exceed 10 dBA above the ambient noise level for two or more hours per day, more than five days per week, for a period of 12 months or more.
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
Prior to issuance of demolition,
grading, and/or building permits for
each phase of construction –
construction noise analysis
submitted
Ongoing during construction –
noise control measures
implemented
Technical analysis of construction
noise levels and recommended noise
control measures submitted
Recommended measures
implemented sufficient to ensure that
the maximum noise level at the
property boundary would remain at or
below 110 dB and increases in hourly
noise levels at the property boundary
would not exceed 10 dBA above the
ambient noise level for two or more
hours per day, more than five days
per week, for a period of 12 months
or more
AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure 9a: Prior to issuance of demolition permits, grading permits, or building permits for the proposed project, the City of Palo Alto shall ensure that site plan notes include requirements for the construction contractor to implement the following Basic Construction Emission Control Measures. Visual site inspections shall be conducted throughout construction to ensure these measures are implemented appropriately:
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
Notes on site plans for each
construction phase include
requirements for construction
contractor to implement Basic
Construction Emission Control
Measures
13.f
Packet Pg. 306
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 17
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered two times daily.
Exposed surfaces include, but are not limited to parking and staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads.
2. Haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
3. Wet power vacuum street sweepers shall be used to
remove any visible trackout of mud or dirt onto adjacent public roads at least once a day. Use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
4. Vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to shall be limited to a maximum of 15 miles per hour.
5. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, and parking lots to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In
addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6. Materials stockpiles shall be covered on days when they are not accessed, including any day on which construction does not occur.
7. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum
idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage
shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
8. All construction equipment shall be maintained and
properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s
Prior to issuance of demolition,
grading, or building permits – site
plans contain appropriate emission
control notes
Throughout construction – site
inspections
Emission control measures are
implemented throughout all
construction
13.f
Packet Pg. 307
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 18
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a
certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
9. The construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Palo Alto regarding dust complaints. This
person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 (see Hazards and Hazardous Materials section below)
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
Mitigation Measure 12a: Project design and construction shall show compliance with and implement all of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigation (January 2107) and supplemental recommendations memorandum (March 2017)
prepared by Silicon Valley Soil Engineering or provide an acceptable equivalent to these measures to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works Engineering in order to reduce hazards related to expansive soils and the stability of soil and landforms.
These include but are not limited to:
1. the basement foundation system should use a
concrete mat slab with a minimum thickness of 12
inches and underlain by 6 inches of ¾-inch clean
crushed rock and waterproofed;
2. basement retaining walls shall be designed using a
pseudo-static force value of 2.71kips per lineal foot of wall length acting at a distance of 0.6H from the
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
Prior to issuance of demolition,
grading, or building permits – site
plans reflect geotechnical
investigation and supplemental
memorandum recommendations
Prior to issuance of certificate of
occupancy – site inspections to
verify as built conditions
All recommendations contained in
the geotechnical investigation
(January 2107) and supplemental
recommendations memorandum
(March 2017) prepared by Silicon
Valley Soil Engineering, or
acceptable equivalents, are
implemented during construction
13.f
Packet Pg. 308
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 19
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
bottom of the wall, which shall be added to the lateral active force for seismic loading condition,
3. basement retaining walls shall be waterproofed
consistent with the recommendations of the
geotechnical investigation and a waterproofing
consultant;
4. shoring shall be provided for trenches and excavation in excess of five feet in depth;
5. a geotechnical engineer shall be retained to observe and inspect all earthwork and grading;
6. within construction areas, organic materials shall be stripped from the soil and the soil shall be scarified by machine to a depth of 12 inches and thoroughly
cleaned of vegetation and other deleterious matter;
7. subgrade shall be compacted to not less than 90%
relative maximum density per ASTM D1557-12 at a
moisture content greater than 3% above the optimum
moisture provided that the subgrade meets
compaction and is determined to be stable under
construction equipment loading; and
8. a contingency dewatering plan shall be prepared that provides for collection of any surface runoff water and perched groundwater and use of the water as
approved by the City and consistent with the City’s
dewatering requirements, such as for on-site dust
suppression, street-sweeping, and other City
programs.
13.f
Packet Pg. 309
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 20
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
Mitigation Measure 12b: A discovery of a paleontological specimen during any phase of the project shall result in a work stoppage in the vicinity of the find until it can be evaluated by a professional paleontologist. Any paleontological resource discovered on site should be either preserved at its location or adequately documented as a condition of removal. Should loss or damage be detected, additional protective measures or further action (e.g., resource removal), as determined by a professional paleontologist, shall be implemented to ensure that the information potential represented by the resource is retained.
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing: Throughout construction
Work is stopped within 100 feet of
any paleontological specimen
discovered during construction
Any discovered specimens are
evaluated by a professional
paleontologist
Recommended protective measures
or further action, as determined by
the paleontologist, are implemented
prior to resuming construction
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATION MEASURES
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If feasible, vegetation on the project site shall be removed outside of the bird-nesting season. If the start of site clearing, tree removal, or building demolition occurs between February 1 and August 31, a pre-construction survey for nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify the location of nests in active use that were established prior to the start of project implementation activities. The pre-construction survey shall take place no more than 7 days prior to initiation of construction. All trees and shrubs on the site and on adjacent properties shall be surveyed, with particular attention to any trees or shrubs that would be removed or directly disturbed. If an active nest of a protected bird is found on site, the biologist shall, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), determine whether construction work would affect the Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing: Prior to issuance of
demolition, tree removal, and/or
grading permits for each
construction phase
Pre-construction surveys are
completed and submitted to the City
within 7 days of commencement of
construction activity if construction
begins between February 1 and
August 31
No construction occurs within 300
feet of active raptor nests.
Consultation with CDFW occurs prior
to construction if an active nest of a
protected bird is identified within the
project site
13.f
Packet Pg. 310
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 21
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
active nest or disrupt reproductive behavior. Criteria used for this evaluation shall include presence of visual screening between the nest and construction activities, and behavior of adult birds in response to the surveyors or other ambient human activity. If construction could affect the nest or disrupt reproductive behavior, the biologist shall, in consultation with CDFW, determine an appropriate construction-free buffer zone around the nest to remain in place until the young have fledged or other appropriate protective measures are taken to ensure no take of protected species occurs.
If it is determined that construction will affect an active raptor nest or disrupt reproductive behavior, then avoidance is the only mitigation available. Construction shall not be permitted within 300 feet of such a nest until a qualified biologist determines that the subject nests are no longer active.
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit or tree removal permit, the City of Palo Alto (City) shall verify that pre-construction surveys have been conducted within 10 days of the proposed start of demolition. If active bird nests are present, the City shall verify that CDFW has been consulted and either determined that
construction will not affect an active bird nest or that appropriate construction-free buffer zones have been established or other appropriate protective measures have been taken.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: No earlier than 30 days prior to initiation of demolition activities, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (i.e., a biologist holding a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) collection permit and a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFW allowing the biologist to handle bats) to determine if active bat roosts or Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Pre-construction surveys completed
and reports submitted to the City no
more than 30 days prior to demolition
If active roosts are found within 300
feet of the demolition activities,
CDFW is consulted and no
13.f
Packet Pg. 311
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 22
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
maternal colonies are present on or within 300 feet of the demolition area.
Should an active maternity roost be identified, the roost shall not be disturbed and demolition and construction within 300 feet of the maternity roost shall be postponed or halted until the juveniles have fledged and the roost is vacated, as determined by a qualified biologist. Consultation with CDFW shall also be initiated.
Under no circumstance shall an active roost be directly disturbed.
If nonbreeding bat hibernacula are found on the project site, the individuals shall be safely evicted under the direction of a qualified bat biologist and with consultation with CDFW. These actions shall allow bats to leave during nighttime hours, thus increasing their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation during daylight.
If it is determined that demolition or construction will not affect roosting behavior or disrupt a maternal colony, demolition or construction may proceed without any restriction or mitigation measure.
If it is determined that demolition or construction will affect an active bat roost or disrupt reproductive behavior, then avoidance is the only mitigation available. Under no circumstance shall an active roost be directly disturbed. Demolition or construction within 300 feet shall be postponed or halted until the roost is naturally vacated as determined by a qualified biologist.
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the City of Palo Alto (City) shall verify that pre-construction surveys have been conducted within 30 days of the proposed start of demolition. If bats are present, the City shall verify that CDFW has been consulted and either determined that construction will not affect an active bat Timing: Prior to issuance of
demolition permits for each
construction phase
demolition occurs within 300 feet of
active roosts
Individuals within any nonbreeding
bat hibernacula are evicted in
compliance with recommendations
from a qualified biologist and in
consultation with CDFW
13.f
Packet Pg. 312
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 23
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
roost or disrupt a maternal colony, or that individuals in a nonbreeding bat hibernacula have been safely evicted.
Due to regulations from the California Health Department, direct contact by construction workers with any bat is not allowed.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of properly. If PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB-containing ballasts, and refrigerants.
Implementation: Castilleja School
Monitoring: City of Palo Alto
Timing:
Prior to issuance of demolition
permits for each construction
phase – complete hazardous
materials building survey and
retain qualified contractor for
demolition and disposal if needed
During construction – ensure any
hazardous building materials are
handled and disposed of in
accordance with state and federal
regulations
Hazardous materials building survey
conducted by a qualified
environmental specialist
If LCMs and/or ACMs are identified,
demolition activities shall be
conducted by a trained and qualified
contractor and LCMs and ACMs are
disposed of properly
Any PCBs are managed in
accordance with the Metallic
Discards Act of 1991 (California
Public Resources Code, Sections
42160–42185) and other state and
federal guidelines and regulations
13.f
Packet Pg. 313
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 24
Table 1
Castilleja School Project MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Responsibility,
Monitoring Responsibility,
and Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria
TOPICS FOR WHICH NO MITIGATION MEASURES ARE REQUIRED:
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Energy
Hydrology and Water Quality
Mineral Resources
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities/Service Systems
13.f
Packet Pg. 314
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 25
Castilleja School Project Construction MMRP Checklist
Table 2
Castilleja School Project Construction MMRP Checklist
Mitigation Measure Action City Verification Actions/Dates
ACTIONS REQUIRED BY CASTILLEJA PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS Mitigation Measure 4b Submit Tree Protection and Preservation Plan, implement all pre- construction tree protection measures identified in the approved plan, and submit Verification of Tree Protection Report for each construction phase
Mitigation Measure 5a Submit lighting plan for each construction phase Mitigation Measure 6a Submit historic resources protection plan for each construction phase
Mitigation Measure 8a Submit technical analysis identifying specific loudspeaker equipment, locations and positions of speakers, and anticipate noise levels for nearby sensitive receptors
Mitigation Measure 8b Submit construction noise analysis and construction plans demonstrating implementation of recommended noise control measures for each construction phase
Mitigation Measure 9a Include notes on site plans requiring implementation of Basic Construction Emission Control Measures for each construction phase
Mitigation Measure 12a Submit site plans demonstrating compliance with all geotechnical investigation and supplemental memorandum recommendations for each construction phase
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 Complete pre-construction nesting bird surveys and submit to the City within 7 days of commencement of construction activity if
13.f
Packet Pg. 315
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 26
Table 2
Castilleja School Project Construction MMRP Checklist
Mitigation Measure Action City Verification Actions/Dates construction begins between February 1 and August 31 for each construction phase
Consult with CDFW if an active nest of a protected bird is located for each construction phase
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 Complete pre-construction roosting bat surveys City no more than 30 days prior to demolition for each construction phase
Consult with CDFW if active roosts are found within 300 feet of demolition activities for each construction phase
Evict any individual bats within any nonbreeding bat hibernacula in compliance with recommendations from a qualified biologist and in consultation with CDFW
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 Complete hazardous building material survey and retain qualified contractors for demolition and disposal if hazardous building materials are identified
ACTIONS REQUIRED BY CASTILLEJA DURING CONSTRUCTION
Mitigation Measure 4b Conduct monthly tree inspections and submit Monthly Inspection Report
Mitigation Measure 5a Install lighting in accordance with approved plan Mitigation Measure 6a Implement historic resources protection plan Mitigation Measure 6b Provide cultural resources awareness training to all construction crew prior to beginning any ground disturbing activities
Ensure that construction crew halts work if cultural resource are discovered until resources are evaluated by qualified archeologist and any treatment measures are implemented
13.f
Packet Pg. 316
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 27
Table 2
Castilleja School Project Construction MMRP Checklist
Mitigation Measure Action City Verification Actions/Dates Mitigation Measure 7a Install driveway vehicle count equipment Mitigation Measure 7b Maintain vegetation within 40 feet of school’s driveways onto public streets so that the area between three and seven feet (elevation) from the roadway surface is clear
Mitigation Measure 8a Install loudspeaker in accordance with technical report specifications; retain noise consultant to measure noise levels after installation and submit report to City
Mitigation Measure 8b Implement construction noise control measures Mitigation Measure 9a Implement air pollution emission control measures Mitigation Measure 12a Implement all geotechnical investigation and supplemental memorandum recommendations
Mitigation Measure 12b Stop work within 100 feet of any paleontological specimen discovered during construction until they are evaluated by a professional paleontologist and recommended protective measures are implemented
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 Prohibit construction within 300 feet of any active raptor nests Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 Ensure any hazardous building materials are handled and disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations
ACTIONS REQUIRED BY CITY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY Mitigation Measure 4b Verify implementation of Tree Protection and Preservation Plan Mitigation Measure 5a Verify that lighting comports with Municipal Code Mitigation Measure 6a Verify that historic resources were not damaged, or require repairs if damage occurred
13.f
Packet Pg. 317
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 28
Table 2
Castilleja School Project Construction MMRP Checklist
Mitigation Measure Action City Verification Actions/Dates Mitigation Measure 7a Verify that driveway vehicle count equipment was installed and is operational and calibrated
Mitigation Measure 7b Paint curbs to prohibit on-street parking within 35 feet of project site driveways
Mitigation Measure 8a Verify pool loudspeaker noise levels Mitigation Measure 12a Complete site inspections to verify as built conditions comport with all geotechnical investigation and supplemental memorandum recommendations
13.f
Packet Pg. 318
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 29
Castilleja School Project Operation MMRP Annual Checklist Table 3
Castilleja School Project Operation MMRP Annual Checklist Mitigation Measure Castilleja Action Timing City Verification Actions/Dates
ACTIONS REQUIRED FOR SPECIFIC DURATION
Mitigation Measure 4b Monitor all trees (retained,
relocated, newly planted) and
submit annual reports
Beginning at end of each
construction phase and
continuing for five years
Plant additional trees to replace
any that do not survive initial five-
year monitoring and monitoring
such trees for five years from the
date of planting
Beginning at the time that any
tree subject to monitoring is
shown to have died and
continuing for five years from the
date of planting
ACTIONS REQUIRED IN PERPETUITY
Mitigation Measure 4a Publish special events calendar At the beginning of each academic year, with updates
each trimester
Submit parking plans to City Prior to onsite special events Mitigation Measure 7a Implement TDM plan During all operation, including during construction when school
is still operating
Submit monitoring reports Three times per year until full enrollment reached and peak
hour and daily trip standards
achieved – generally every 3
months, beginning approximately
3 months after the first day of
school for that year
Thereafter two times per year -
generally every 4.5 months,
13.f
Packet Pg. 319
Castilleja School Project MMRP 10056
October 2020 30
beginning approximately 4.5
months after the first day of
school for that year
Mitigation Measure 7a
(continued)
If standards are not achieved as
defined in Mitigation Measure 7a,
implement additional TDM
measures and reduce enrollment
Need for action to be determined
at end of each
monitoring/reporting period.
When additional TDM measures
are required, they shall be
implemented as soon as possible.
If enrollment reductions are
needed, they shall occur in the
next admission cycle.
Implement active traffic
management as identified in the
Garage Circulation Plan, or
subsequent plans approved by
the City
during all drop-off and pick-up
periods and during special events
with more than 75 guests
Mitigation Measure 7b Submit evidence of landscaping
management plan or active
landscape maintenance contract
Annually
Inspect no-parking curb markings
within 35 feet of site driveways
and report any need for repainting
to the City
Annually
Mitigation Measure 8a Maintain pool loudspeaker
equipment in accordance with
noise technical report
specifications and submit
evidence of inspection and any
repairs to City
Annually
13.f
Packet Pg. 320
MEMORANDUM
To: Amy French, Chief Planning Official
From: Katherine Waugh, Senior Project Manager
Subject: Castilleja School Project – Environmental Effects of Scheme D and Scheme E Date: March 24, 2022
Castilleja School has submitted revised project plans in response to direction provided by the Palo Alto City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission. These include Scheme D, which is the project applicant’s preferred option, and Scheme E, for which City staff has recommended approval because it appears to best meet the direction provided by the City. Dudek has prepared this memo to address the relative environmental effects of both options as compared to Project Alternative 4, the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative, which was evaluated in the Castilleja School Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR ) (July 202 0) and was the preferred alternative presented to the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission. 1 Summary of Project Designs
1.1 Alternative 4
Alternative 4 is described in the Castilleja School Project Final EIR Master Response 4. Under this alternative, Castilleja would demolish five campus buildings and the existing at-grade pool and replace them with an academic building, a below-grade parking structure, a new below-grade pool with sound wall, below-grade delivery and trash enclosures/waste pick-up, and reconstruction of the Circle in the center of the campus. The parking structure would consist of 32,480 square feet of interior space and contain 83 parking spaces, 5 of which would be tandem spaces.
This alternative would also reconstruct a loop driveway on Kellogg Avenue, in generally the same location as the existing loop driveway. The Alternative 4 site plan is provided in Final EIR Figure MR4-1 and Draft EIR Figure 13-1.
Final EIR Figure MR4-2 and Draft EIR Figure 13-2 provides an exhibit showing the changes in the garage footprint relative to the originally proposed project design. The modifications made to the parking structure under Alternative 4 allow for retention of the row of six redwood trees at the western edge of Spieker Field and elimination of the proposed below-grade encroachment into the special setback along Embarcadero Road . This design includes 26 surface parking spaces.
1.2 Scheme D
Scheme D is presented in the project document titled Updated Garage Studies (November 3, 2021) which is available at the City’s webpage for the Castilleja School Project (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-Planning/Pending-and-
13.g
Packet Pg. 321
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PROJECT – ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SCHEME D AND SCHEME E
10056 2 MARCH 2022
Approved-Projects/Approved-Projects/Castilleja-School/Castilleja-School-Project-Documents). Scheme D makes the following changes to Project Alternative 4:
• The parking structure would consist of 29,277 square feet and contain 69 below -grade parking spaces .
Surface parking lots would have the same 26 parking spaces as under Project Alternative 4. The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires 104 parking spaces. Scheme D would provide a t otal of 95 spaces; thus a 9% parking adjustment would be required.
• The reduction in the parking structure size would avoid encroachment into the Tree Protection Zones for most trees located along the western edge of Spieker Field. The garage would encroach into the Tree Protection Zone only for tree #102.
• Modify building façade along Kellogg Avenue in accordance with direction from the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board.
1.3 Scheme E
Scheme E is also presented in the project document titled Updated Garage Studies ( November 3, 2021). Scheme E makes the following changes to Project Alternative 4:
• The parking structure would consist of 24,294 square feet and contain 52 below -grade parking spaces.
Surface parking lots would be modified to provide 37 at -grade parking spaces. Scheme E would provide a total of 89 parking spaces; thus a 14.4% parking adjustment would be required. • The reduction in the parking structure size would avoid encroachment into the Tree Protection Zones for most trees located along the western edge of Spieker Field. The garage would encroach into the Tree Protection Zone only for tree #102.
• Shift the proposed pool eastward (toward Kellogg Avenue), which would reduce encroachment into the Tree Protection Zone for trees #87 and #89.
• Eliminate the below -grade trash/recycling and delivery area, retaining these activities at -grade in designated loading areas in the Emerson Street surface parking lot, consistent with the current campus operations. This would allow for retention of tree #155. Add an acoustic fence along the Emerson Street setback line (20 feet from street frontage) adjacent to the parking lot. • Modify building façade along Kellogg Avenue in accordance with direction from the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board.
2 Comparison of Environmental Effects
The following discussion addresses whether Scheme D or Scheme E would result in changes to the project’s environmental effects as evaluated in the Castilleja School Project EIR.
13.g
Packet Pg. 322
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PROJECT – ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SCHEME D AND SCHEME E
10056 3 MARCH 2022
2.1 Land Use and Planning
Under the topic of Land Use and Planning, the Castilleja School Project EIR found that the project could result in conflicts with surrounding land uses associated with special events, tree loss, transportation, and noise . These impacts were determined to be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EIR.
Special Events Scheme D and Scheme E would not alter the proposed project components related to special events and thus would not increase or decrease potential land use and planning impacts associated with special events.
Trees Scheme D and Scheme E would each reduce potential impacts to trees as follows:
• Scheme D reduces encroachment into the Tree Protection Zone for tree #102 and avoids encroachment into the Tree Protection Zone for trees #115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, and 157. • Scheme E allows for retention of tree #155, reduces encroachment into the Tree Protection Zone for trees #87, 89, and 102, and avoids encroachment into the Tree Protection Zone for trees #115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, and 157.
Transportation Scheme D and Scheme E would each use the same distributed circulation pattern described for Project Alternative 4, with school drop-off and pick-up occurring at three locations – within the parking structure, in the looped driveway on Bryant Street, and in the looped driveway on Kellogg Avenue. Students would be assigned to a specific drop-off/pick-up location in accordance with the school’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. Thus, Scheme D and Scheme E would not increase or decrease potential impacts associated with transportation.
Noise Scheme D would not alter the location, types, or extent of noise-generating activities within the campus and thus would not increase or decrease potential impacts associated with noise. Scheme E would eliminate the below- grade space for trash/recycling pick- up and deliveries and would return these activities to the surface parking lot on Emerson Street, consistent with the current campus design and operations. Thus, Scheme E could increase potential impacts associated with noise compared to Project Alternative 4, but retention of these activities at-grade would be consistent with the existing conditions and thus would not be a changed condition or new impact relative to existing conditions . However, t o ameliorate the existing noise concerns related to these at-grade activities, Scheme E includes an acoustic fence along the Emerson Street setback line (20 feet from street frontage) adjacent to the existing surface parking lot . Thus, Scheme E would not increase or decrease potential impacts associated with noise.
2.2 Aesthetics
The Castilleja School Project EIR found that under Project Alterna tive 4, impacts associated with aesthetics would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4b, which requires replacement of protected trees as defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, replacement of street trees, and additional tree planting to replace the tree canopy from trees that are not specifically protected. The EIR found that project would result in temporary changes in campus-wide visual character, through demolition and construction of campus facilities and associated tree removal but would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
13.g
Packet Pg. 323
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PROJECT – ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SCHEME D AND SCHEME E
10056 4 MARCH 2022
surroundings because the building scale and massing, materials, and landscaping would comply with the City’s design standards and would be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood.
Trees As discussed in Section 2.1, Scheme D and Scheme E would each reduce potential impacts to trees. Under Scheme D there would be no changes in the extent of tree removal compared to Project Alternative 4, thus the aesthetic impacts associated with trees under Scheme D would be the same as under Project Alternative 4. Under Scheme E, one additional tree would be retained onsite. However, this tree, #155, is located interior to the campus and is not a distinct visual element in views of the campus from the adjacent public streets. Thus, aesthetic impacts associated with trees under Scheme E would be the same as under Project Alternative 4.
Kellogg Avenue Scheme D and Scheme E include the same modifications to the Kellogg Avenue façade compared to Project Alternative 4. These modifications would not create any new adverse aesthetics effects because the modifications reduce building massing by lowering the roofline on a portion of the building and create more variety in the building materials, articulation, and fenestration, in accordance with direction provided by the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board.
2.3 Cultural Resources
The Castilleja School Project EIR found that under Project Alternative 4, there would be potentially significant impacts associated with cultural resources because demolition and construction activities would occur in close proximity to the Gunn Family Administration Center Building/ Elizabeth Hughes Chapel Theater, which is listed as a Category 3 building on the City’s inventory of historic resources and listed in the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historical Resources Inventory with a status code 5S2 . Similarly, the residence located at 1215 Emerson Street, adjacent to the project site, is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and could be inadvertently damaged during project construction. The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 6a, which would require the development and approval of a historic building protection plan for each phase of construction, and Mitigation Measure 6b, which would require education of construction workers on the potential for discovery of archeological resources and adherence to protocols for protection of such resources.
Scheme D and Scheme E would not alter the extent of demolition and construction activities in proximity to the Gunn Family Administration Center Building/ Elizabeth Hughes Chapel Theater. Both schemes would reduce the proximity of excavation and construction activities to the residence located at 1215 Emerson Street by reducing the size of the parking structure. Thus both schemes would slightly reduce the potential for adverse effects to cultural resources compared to Project Alternative 4.
2.4 Transportation
The Castilleja School Project EIR found that Project Alternative 4 would result in less- than-significant impacts to transportation with implementation of Mitigation Measure 7a, which d efines minimum requirements for the school’s TDM program. This measure includes a requirement that the project must not result in an increase in the total daily trips and the AM Peak Hour trips associated with the school. It also defines the percentages of drop-off and pick-up trips that must be assigned to each of the three drop -off/pick-up locations. The EIR also requires implementation of Mitigation Measure 7b to ensure that adequate sight distance is provided adjacent to each of the project site driveways.
13.g
Packet Pg. 324
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PROJECT – ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SCHEME D AND SCHEME E
10056 5 MARCH 2022
Under Scheme D and Scheme E, the campus would not meet the Municipal Code standards for the minimum required number of parking spaces. Scheme D would require a 9% parking reduction and Scheme E would require a 14.4% parking reduction. Under either sc heme, the parking adjustment would not create any new adverse environmental effects because the adjustment would be supported by the proposed TDM program, which includes measures to ensure that there would be no increase in total daily or AM Peak Hour trips as required by EIR Mitigation Measure 7a. Thus, the amount of parking included in Scheme D and Scheme E would be sufficient to meet parking demand and it would not create an increase in vehicle congestion or emissions. Parking adjustments of up to 20% are permissible by approval of the Director of Planning and Development Services, when associated with robust TDM programs, which is the case for the subject project.
Scheme D and Scheme E would not alter the location or configuration of any of the project site driveways and would not alter the TDM program, including the percentages of drop -off and pick-up trips assigned to each of the three drop-off/pick-up locations. Thus, there would be no increase or decrease in the environmental impacts associated with transportation compared to Project Alternative 4.
2.5 Noise
The Castilleja School Project EIR found that Project Alternative 4 would result in less- than-significant impacts to noise with implementation of the following mitigation measures:
• Mitigation Measure 4a, which establishes limits on the size, timing, and frequency of special events to ensure that the events remain within the parameters of the impact analysis and remain in compliance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 9.10.060;
• Mitigation Measure 8a, which establishes a performance standard that must be attained at the time that the loudspeaker system for the pool area is designed;
• Mitigation Measure 8b, which establishes performance standards that must be attained during each construction phase; and
• Mitigation Measure 6a, which requires a protection plan to be implemented for the Administration/Chapel Theater building and provides recommendations for equipment usage and demolition techniques to minimize potential vibration effects.
Special Events As stated in Section 2.1, Scheme D and Scheme E would not alter the proposed project components related to special events and thus would not increase or decrease potential noise impacts associated with special events.
Pool Loudspeaker System Scheme D would not alter the location, design, or use of the pool and thus would not increase or decrease the potential noise impacts associated with the pool loudspeaker system. Scheme E would shift the location of the pool eastwar d, but would not alter the design or use of the pool and thus also would not increase or decrease the potential noise impacts associated with the pool loudspeaker system.
Trash/Recycling and Deliveries Scheme D would not alter the location or extent of trash/recycling pick-up or delivery activities within the campus and thus would not increase or decrease potential impacts associated with noise. As stated in Section 2.1, Scheme E would eliminate the below- grade space for trash/recycling pick-up and deliveries
13.g
Packet Pg. 325
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PROJECT – ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SCHEME D AND SCHEME E
10056 6 MARCH 2022
and would return these activities to the surface parking lot on Emerson Street, consistent with the current campus design and operations. Thus, Scheme E could increase potential impacts associated with noise compared to Project Alternative 4, but retention of these activities at- grade would be consistent with the existing conditions and thus would not be a changed condition or new impact relative to existing conditions. However, to ameliorate the existing noise concerns related to these at-grade activities, Scheme E includes an acoustic fence along the Emerson Street frontage adjacent to the existing surface parking lot. Thus, Scheme E would not increase or decrease potential impacts associated with noise.
Construction Scheme D and Scheme E would each reduce the size of the parking structure, which would reduce the overall duration of construction activities. Under Scheme D, the parking structure would be reduced by 3,203 square feet (9.8%) compared to Project Alternative 4. Under Scheme E, the parking structure would be reduced by 8,186 square feet (25.2%) compared to Project Alternative 4. Although the duration of construction activities would be reduced, the maximum intensity of daily construction -related noise would not be reduced beca use the same types of equipment would be used, and the same types of construction activities would occur. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 8b would be required under either Scheme D or Scheme E, and neither scheme would increase or decrease the construction-related noise effects compared to Project Alternative 4.
Construction Vibration The Castilleja School Project EIR found that the Administration/Chapel building, which has been identified as a historic resource, could be exposed to vibration during demolition of the adjacent Academic building, which is connected to the east façade of the Administration building. The effects would be reduced by implementation of Mitigation Measure 6a, which, as noted above requires a protection plan to be implemented for the Administration/Chapel Theater building and provides recommendations for equipment usage and demolition techniques to minimize vibration. The EIR found that the reduced size of the garage under the Project Alternative 4 would shorten the total construction period but would involve generally the same activities and equipment usage, and thus would not reduce the potential vibration levels. Similarly, as discussed under the Construction paragraph above, Scheme D and Scheme E would each further reduce the size of the garage and shorten the construction period but would not involve generally the same activities and equipment usage, and thus would not reduce the potential vibration levels.
2.6 Air Quality
The Castilleja School Project EIR found that Project Alternative 4 would result in less-than-significant impacts to air quality with implementation of Mitigation Measure 9a, which stipulates that the proposed project must implement specific Basic Construction Emission Control Measures throughout project cons truction, and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which requires that existing buildings proposed to be demolished be surveyed by a qualified environmental specialist to identify potential lead-containing materials, asbestos containing materials, and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls and that any disturbance of such materials be carried out by a qualified contractor and be disposed of properly, in accordance with state and federal guidelines and regulations.
There would be no changes to the proposed demolition activities under either Scheme D or Scheme E. Thus, there would be no increase or decrease in the potential for airborne emissions of hazardous materials during project implementation.
13.g
Packet Pg. 326
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PROJECT – ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SCHEME D AND SCHEME E
10056 7 MARCH 2022
As stated in Secti on 2.5, Scheme D would reduce the size of the parking structure by 3,203 square feet (9.8%) compared to Project Alternative 4 and Scheme E would reduce the size of the parking structure by 8,186 square feet (25.2%) compared to Project Alternative 4.
As discussed in the Castilleja School Project Final EIR Master Response 4, construction of the parking structure under Project Alternative 4 would require excavation of approximately 17,000 cubic yards of soil , requiring approximately 2,125 one-way hauling trips. Under Scheme D excavation for the parking structure would be reduced to approximately 15,334 cubic yards and 1,917 one-way hauling trips. Under Scheme E excavation for the parking structure would be reduced to approximately 12,376 cubic yards and 1,547 one -way hauling trips. Although the number of hauling trips would be reduced, the construction schedule would be shortened, and the number of daily trips would be generally the same. Thus, the daily air pollutant emissions would be generally the same as evaluated for Project Alternative 4. Further, air quality impacts from construction are considered on a daily average basis across the whole construction period. As shown in the Castilleja School Project Draft EIR Table 9 -6, the daily construction emissions under the originally proposed project were considerably below the thresholds adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The reductions in excavation and off -haul would not substantially reduce the total volume or daily average of construction emissions, and implementation of Mitigation Measure 9a would still be necessary under either Scheme D or Scheme E to ensure impacts remain less than significant. Thus, neither Scheme D nor Scheme E would increase or decrease impacts associated with air quality emissions during construction.
2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Castilleja School Project EIR found that Project Alternative 4 would result in less- than-significant impacts associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions because t he emissions generated during demolition, construction, and operation of the proposed would remain below the thresholds established by the B ay Area Air Quality Management District.
Demolition and Construction The Castilleja School Project Draft EIR Table 10 -2 shows that the originally proposed project would generate 452.6 metric tons of GHG emissions in the first year of construction, 749.2 metric tons of GHG emissions in the second year of construction, and 161.2 metric tons of GHG emissions in the third year of construction The. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District threshold for GHG emissions during construction is 1,100 metric tons per year. The construction related GHG emissions under the originally proposed project and under Project Alternative 4 would be well below this threshold.
With the reduced size of the parking structure and the associated reduction in excavation and hauling trips, construction related GHG emissions would be further reduced under Scheme D and under Scheme E. Thus, neither scheme would increase environmental impacts associated with construction related GHG emissions.
Operation Under all of the project alternatives, including Scheme D and Scheme E, the project would replace old buildings with new buildings that would achieve higher energy -efficiency and water -efficiency standards and Castilleja would implement a Sustainability Plan to reduce other sources of GHG emissions associated with school operations. Neither Scheme D nor Scheme E would alter the campus’s energy-efficiency, water -efficiency, or Sustainability Plan and thus neither would increase or decrease environmental effects associated with GHG emissions from long-term operation of the school.
13.g
Packet Pg. 327
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PROJECT – ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SCHEME D AND SCHEME E
10056 8 MARCH 2022
2.8 Energy
The Castilleja School Project EIR found that Project Alternative 4 would result in less -than-significant impacts associated with energy consumption because construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy. Construction activities would be required to comply with the California Air Resources Board Airborne Toxics Control Measure , which minimizes petroleum use during construction. Energy consumption during long-term operation of the school would be minimized because the project would replace old buildings with new buildings that would achieve higher energy -efficiency and water -efficiency standards and Castilleja would implement a Sustainability Plan to further reduce energy consumption.
Demolition and Construction Similar to the discussions of demolition and construction in Sections 2.6 and 2.7, under either Scheme D or Scheme E there would be a reduction in the extent of energy consumed during excavation and construction of the parking structure. Thus, there would be a slight reduction in the overall energy consumption associated with the proposed demolition and construction activities compared to Project Alternative 4.
Operation As stated in Section 2.7, under all of the project alternatives, including Scheme D and Scheme E, the project would replace old buildings with new buildings that would achieve higher energy -efficiency and water - efficiency standards and Castilleja would implement a Sustainability Plan. Neither Scheme D nor Scheme E would alter the campus’s energy -efficiency, water-efficiency, or Sustainability Plan and thus neither would increase or decrease environmental effects associated with energy consumption from long-term operation of the school.
2.9 Geology and Soils
The Castilleja School Project EIR found that Project Alternative 4 would result in less- than-significant impacts associated with geology and soils through compliance with the California Building Code and implementation of Mitigation Measure 12a, which requ ires compliance with recommendations provided in the site -specific geotechnical investigation to address seismic activity and hazards, expansive soil, and the potential need for dewatering during excavation.
Scheme D and Scheme E would not alter the level of potential seismic activity in the project region and would not avoid the need to implement geotechnical recommendations related to expansive soil. While each scheme would reduce the total size of the parking structure and thus would reduce the total volume of soil excavation, neither would reduce the depth of excavation necessary to construct the parking structure.
As discussed in the Draft EIR, excavation for the parking structure is expected to reach a maximum of 15 feet below grade. The Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project (Draft EIR Appendix H) reports that groundwater was encountered at depths between 29 and 31 feet below grade in the geotechnical explorations and rose to static levels ranging of 28 feet to 30 feet at the end of the drilling operation, and that based on the California Geological Survey’s Seismic Hazard Zone Report 111, the highest expected groundwater level at the project site is approximately 23 feet below ground elevation. Thus, it is not expected that groundwater would be encountered during excavation and construction of the parking structure. In the event that groundwater is encountered during excavation and construction and dewatering becomes necessary, Mitigation Measure 12a requires that the contingency dewateri ng plan recommended by the Geotechnical Investigation be implemented . Further, any dewatering activities would be subject to the City’s requirements and standard permit approval conditions, including that water be collected in trucks for dust suppression on-site, street-sweeping and other city programs.
13.g
Packet Pg. 328
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PROJECT – ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SCHEME D AND SCHEME E
10056 9 MARCH 2022
Under Scheme D or Scheme E, if groundwater is encountered during excavation for the parking structure, the reduced area and total volume of excavation would reduce the extent of dewatering that would be nece ssary.
Neither scheme would increase the area and volume of excavation or the potential extent of dewatering, thus neither scheme would increase environmental impacts associated with groundwater compared to Project Alternative 4.
Similarly, the reduced area and total volume of excavation for the parking structure would reduce the potential for paleontological resources to be encountered during construction. However, some potential to encounter such resources would remain and implem entation of Mitigation Measure 12b, which requires evaluation, protection, and/or documentation of any discovered paleontological resources by a qualified paleontologist, would be required.
Neither Scheme D nor Scheme E would increase the potential environmental impacts associated with paleontological resources.
3 Conclusion
As demonstrated in Section 2, neither Scheme D nor Scheme E would increase the adverse environmental impacts of the project compared to Project Alternative 4 and all of the mitigation measures applicable to Project Alternative 4 would also be applicable to either Scheme D or Scheme E.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088.5, recirculation of an EIR is required when “significant new information” is added to an EIR. Significant new information is defined as information showing that a new significant environmental impact would occur, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would occur, a project alternative or mitigation measure that is “considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it,” or the EIR precluded meaningful public review and comment because it was fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory.
Because there would be no increase in the adverse environmental impacts, no new environmental impacts, and no changes to the mitigation measures, no revisions to the Castilleja School Project EIR are required and it is not necessary to recirculate the Castilleja School Project EIR.
13.g
Packet Pg. 329
MEMORANDUM
To: Amy French, City of Palo Alto, Chief Planning Official From: Eric Schniewind, Dudek, Environmental Geologist
Subject: Castilleja School Project – Groundwater Response Technical Memorandum Date: March 25, 2022
cc: Katherine Waugh, Dudek, Senior Project Manager
Attachments: EIR Errata
Resume for Eric Schniewind
1 Introduction
This memorandum consists of a n assessment of the adequacy of the Castilleja School Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the analysis of potential groundwater impacts associated with the proposed project in light of a number of public comments received. This memorandum provides a review of each issue raised and whether it was sufficiently addressed in the EIR.
2 Adequacy of the 2017 Geotechnical Investigation
Chapter 12 of the Draft EIR provided analysis of Geology, Soils, Seismicity and Paleontology which included review of a subsurface investigation to identify underlying conditions of th e site including soil types, geotechnical engineering characteristics, and groundwater depths . The analysis was in part based on the site -specific Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared by Silicon Valley Soil Engineering dated January 2017 and included in the Draft EIR as Appendix H. Appendix H also included the peer review of the report by Cornerstone Earth Group (Cornerstone), dated March 2017. While the report is dated from 2017, it still represents the best available science related to the site -specific conditions that were identified during the subsurface portion of the investigation. The peer review conducted by Cornerstone concluded that the subsurface evaluation including the assessment of groundwater conditions was “adequately addressed and no exception taken.” The peer review also stated that Cornerstone concurs that “full-time dewatering of free groundwater may not be needed.” This conclusion is based on the observation of groundwater levels at depths of 29 and 31 feet below ground surface (bgs) and that the expected highest groundwater level would be at approximately 23 feet bgs. As described in Chapter 3 Project Description of the Draft EIR, the excavation for the below-grade parking structure would only extend to approximately 15 feet bgs which is well above the observed groundwater level and the highest expected level. The proposed pool would be 15 feet below grade and would be 10 feet deep making the excavation necessary to at least 25 feet bgs. This depth is still above the observed levels and since preparation of that report, the region has yet to experience a particularly wet year . According to the most recent groundwater conditions report for the subbasin by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water and SCVWD), which report s on groundwater
13.h
Packet Pg. 330
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PROJECT – GROUNDWATER RESPONSE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
10056 2 MARCH 2022
monitoring data collected in February 2022, groundwater levels for all studied aquifers are lower than they were in February 2017 (SCVWD 2022a). This indicates that groundwater levels at the site would more likely be expected to be lower than what was reported in 2017 rather than any higher. Regardless, the peer review did recommend that a contingency dewatering plan be considered for the project in the event th at groundwater is encountered during construction. Mitigation Measure 12a of the Draft EIR requires that such a contingency plan be prepared and implemented as appropriate. The dewatering plan must meet the requirements of the City’s Dewatering Ordinance, which is discussed in Section 4 of this memorandum.
Therefore, considering that the 2017 geotechnical investigation provides the Draft EIR with the best available science related to underlying conditions and that current (February 2022) groundwater monitoring levels show that groundwater levels in the basin are widely seen as lower rather than higher than what was reported in 2017 , it appears sufficient to conclude that the 2017 geotechnical investigation is still adequate for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes in assessing subsurface conditions as well as the analysis of potential groundwater impacts. In addition, Mitigation Measure 12a provides for the contingency in the unlikely event that groundwater is encountered and requires temporary dewatering. 3 Consideration of Pool and Parking Structure
Chapter 3 Project Description describes both the construction of the subgrade pool and the below-grade parking structure as project elements that were analyzed in the Draft EIR. Page 3-11 of the Draft EIR provides a description of the proposed pool which is then analyzed for potential impacts related to dewatering within Impact 12-4 on page 12-14 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, both proposed excavations for the parking structure and the pool were considered in the analysis.
The analysis in Impact 12-4 identified the maximum depth of excavation as 15 feet bgs. However, the pool would require excavation to a depth of approximately 27 to 28 feet. Thus, errata pages are provided as an attachment to this me morandum showing edits to the EIR text to accurately reflect excavation associated with the pool. No revisions to the impact analysis, conclusions, or mitigation measures are required because the EIR recognized the potential need for dewatering.
4 Palo Alto Dewatering Ordinance
The recent periods of drought conditions have raised awareness of the importance of groundwater resources and were the driving force behind the City of Palo Alto’s response to minimize and standardize the process of pumping and discharge of construction dewatering practices through the passage of the February 2016 Palo Alto Dewatering Ordinance, later revised in 2017 and 2018. It is codified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.28.155. The 2017 changes included monitoring requirements for groundwater elevation changes on nearby structures, clarifying reporting requirements, and requiring a Hydrogeologic Study. The ordinance also includes limits on methods of dewatering, seasonal restrictions, and limits on duration of dewatering a ctivities. While these do not represent specific quantity or volume limitations, they do result in minimizing the amount of groundwater that can be extracted.
The Dewatering Ordinance allows for t emporary construction-related groundwater dewatering to be conducted using groundwater exclusionary techniques and/or controlled groundwater pumping , and establishes criteria for analysis, methodology, and monitoring specific to each of these approaches.
13.h
Packet Pg. 331
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PROJECT – GROUNDWATER RESPONSE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
10056 3 MARCH 2022
When exclusionary techniques are used, the project applicant is required to install a groundwater monitoring well and submit periodic reports of groundwater level, other measurements, and other on-site and off-site conditions as required by the city engineer. At minimum, the applicant must measure the groundwater level “at a monitoring well located at a farthest feasible point on the subject site from the underground structure” daily for the first two weeks of pumping and weekly thereafter.
When groundwater pumping is used, the applicant must first submit a dewatering hydrogeological study stamped by a California licensed hydrogeologist or equivalent. This study must evaluate the potential for off-site effects (such as settlement or movement) by completing a building condition survey and report for structures on adjacent parcels and any adjacent public infrastructure and must include avoidance measures to minimize such effects. Even when the study does not identify likely off -site effects, it must demonstrate that avoidance measures have been incorporated in the pr oject “ to the maximum extent practicable to minimize the flow rate and duration of the pumping.” Throughout the pumping period, ground elevations adjacent to structures on adjacent parcels must be monitored weekly, if allowed by the property owners.
Similar to the requirement for exclusionary techniques, the applicant must install groundwater monitoring wells on the project site and submit measurements and reports to the city engineer. I n the initial two-week start up period of groundwater pumping , the applicant must verify the anticipated drawdown curve identified in the dewatering hydrogeological study with a pump test performed on the monitoring wells. After the two-week start up period, daily pumping rates and volume must be limited to the value calculated in the verification study. The groundwater level must be measured daily for the first week of pumping and then weekly. I f drawdown results are greater than anticipated, the applicant must submit a revised dewatering hydrogeological study including any revised conclusions regarding impacts of the groundwater drawdown.
The ordinance also requires that the pumped groundwater be used to the maximum extent practicable for activities such as irrigation, dust suppression, or other City -directed purposes t hat might otherwise reduce groundwater demands in the subbasin. This includes that applicant must deliver water to parks and schools as requested by the City and must truck water to irrigation sites as directed by the City at least one full day per week during the first six weeks of dewatering and five days per week during the remainder of the dewatering period . The applicant must also install fill station(s) at the project site to allow the pumped groundwater to be used on-site for dust suppression and other construction needs and allow adjacent properties to use hoses connected to the fill station(s) for irrigation off-site.
Adherence to the City ’s Dewatering Ordinance minimizes the potential for adverse effects and provides a means for productive use of t he extracted water that can alleviate other water usage. Therefore, the ordinance is considered effective at minimizing groundwater impacts and for CEQA purposes reduces potential impacts to groundwater resources.
5 Recharge and Recharge Areas
As discussed in the Initial Study that was prepared in preparation of the Draft EIR for the proposed project, the project would not increase impervious surfaces at the site. The Initial Study cited that the proposed project would decrease impervious surfaces by 0.06% and thus there would be a negligible effect on groundwater recharge as a result of the proposed project. Dewatering is not anticipated, but even if it were deter mined to be necessary, it would have no effect on groundwater recharge. Therefore, the issue of whether or not the proposed project would
13.h
Packet Pg. 332
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PROJECT – GROUNDWATER RESPONSE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
10056 4 MARCH 2022
adversely affect groundwater recharge was appropriately addressed in the Initial Study as part of the Notice of Preparation for the EIR , in which the project was determined to have a less than significant impact and did not require further analysis in the Draft EIR.
6 Subsidence
Land subsidence as a result of groundwater extraction has historically been a substantial pro blem for the region.
During the period of 1915 to 1969, the northern portion of Santa Clara County experienced as much as 13 feet of subsidence. Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water ) was created in 1929 in recognition of the need to protect groundwater and minimize land subsidence (SCVWD 2022b). By about 1970, through various management measures, Valley Water successfully halted subsidence. To this day, Valley Water continues to carefully manage the subbasin with vigilant water management and an ongoing monitoring program to ensure that water levels remain well above levels where subsidence might reoccur. Construction dewatering occurs throughout the subbasin and likely represents only a very small portion of the total amount of groundwater extraction experienced in the subbasin compared to, for example, municipal supply where groundwater supplies nearly half of the water used in Santa Clara County. Groundwater is pumped by local water retailers, companies, and individual well owners to serve many beneficial uses, including municipal and domestic needs, agriculture, and industry. Dewatering during construction of the proposed project has been considered unlikely according to the Geotechnical Investigation (and confirmed by third party peer review), and even if it were necessary, would only occur on a temporary basis (no more than 12 weeks of dewatering is permitted ) such that it is likely to have a negligible effect on groundwater levels and subsidence. Therefore, in a subbasin that is diligently managed by Valley Water and local requirements to adhere to the Palo Alto Dewatering Ordinance, the potential for temporary construction dewatering, if even necessary for the project, to result in subsidence is considered unlikely . In the event that dewat ering is deemed necessary, Mitigation Measure 12a requires implementation of a dewatering contingency plan consistent with the City’s Dewatering Ordinance and would be sufficient to reduce the potential for subsidence to less than significant levels. 7 Effect on Trees
As noted above, construction dewatering is not considered likely for construction of the proposed project. However, if required, dewatering would be limited to the restrictions of the Palo Alto Dewatering Ordinance , which includes that dewatering is only allowed for a maximum period of 12 weeks. The pumped water must be used to the maximum extent practical and could be used for the purposes of irrigation on the project site or a consenting neighboring property or distributed throughout the City to locations in need , in coordination with the City’s Urban Forestry and/or Parks and Recreation staff. Therefore, if dewatering is required, adherence to the ordinance would require preparation of a Groundwater Use Plan where the extracted water can be used for irrigation purposes which could be especially beneficial in periods of drought conditions. In addition, dewatering, if required, would only be temporary and existing upland vegetati on is already used to drought cycles with most species relying more on precipitation and irrigation for water needs as opposed to relying solely on groundwater. U pon completion of dewatering, localized groundwater levels would be expected to return to pre-construction levels as is typical of short- term construction dewatering such that there should be negligible effect on local vegetation.
13.h
Packet Pg. 333
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PROJECT – GROUNDWATER RESPONSE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
10056 5 MARCH 2022
8 Greenhouse Gases from Concrete Use
Chapter 10 of the Draft EIR provides the analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissi ons related to the proposed project consistent with CEQA requirements. Construction impacts related to GHG are provided in the Draft EIR in Chapter 10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, on page 10 -22 an d are consistent with the City of Palo Alto’s recommendations to use the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s threshold of 1,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent annually. A commentor suggests that manufacturing the concrete required for construction of the pool would result in carbon dioxide emissions of 1.34 million pounds which is approximately 608 metric tons.
Table 10-2 of the Draft EIR shows that the 3 years of construction would result in a total of 1,363.3 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions for an average of approximately 454 metric tons per year, well below the 1,100 metric ton threshold of significance. CEQA does not require that the analysis of a project’s GHG emissions include consideration of the GHG emissions associated with the life-cycle of building materials (such as manufacturing and potential future disposal). Similarly, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Guidelines do not require or recommend that a life-cycle analysis be included in a CEQA document. However, for informational purposes, the additional 608 metric tons of GHG emissions over the 3 -year construction period would res ult in a level of GHG emissions that is still below the significance threshold. Therefore, the impact conclusion of less than significant for construction GHGs was appropriate and consistent with CEQA requirements. 9 Summary
The proposed project would include earthwork activities for subsurface improvements with deeper excavations necessary for the proposed pool and below-grade parking structure. Based on site specific data collected from the geotechnical investigation conducted at the site, which was p eer reviewed by a third party, the proposed excavations are unlikely to require dewatering during construction. However, the Draft EIR considers that dewatering may still be necessary and requires implementation of Mitigation Measure 12a which includes the requirement of a dewatering contingency plan. Any dewatering would be required to adhere to the City of Palo Alto’s Dewatering Ordinance which includes a requirement of a hydrogeologic study and a groundwater reuse plan.
Adherence to this ordinance would minimize any adverse effects to groundwater resources. Potential impacts related to concrete for the pool construction was appropriately addressed in Chapter 10 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, the issues raised in response to the Draft EIR related to the proposed pool and below-grade parking structure were adequately addressed in the Draft EIR.
10 References Cited
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), 2022a. Groundwater Condition Report. March 2022.
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), 2022 b. Subsidence Information Page, https://www.valleywater.org/your-water/where-your-water-comes/groundwater/subsidence, accessed March 21, 2022.
13.h
Packet Pg. 334
Schedule of Meetings
Published May 12, 2022
This is a courtesy notice only. Meeting dates, times, and locations are subject to change. Almost all Palo Alto Council and some Standing C ommittee meetings are cablecast live on Channel 26. If there ha ppens to be concurrent meetings, one meeting will be broadcast on Channel 29.
Persons with disabilities who requ ire auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities or programs, or who would like inform ation on the City’ s compliance with the A mericans with Disabilities Act (AD A) of 1990, may contact: ADA Coordinator, City of Palo Alto, 650-329-2550 (v oice) or 329-1199 (TDD), [email protected]. Listening assistive devices are available in the Counci l Chambers. S ign language interpreters will be provided upon request with 72 hours advance notice. Please advise the City Clerk's Office (650-329-2571) of meetings or changes by 3:00 p.m. on Wednesdays for inclusion in the following week’s schedule. 5/12/2022
Meetings are held in-person and by virtual teleconference.
MONDAY, May 16
Sp. City Council Meeting, 5:00 p.m.
TUESDAY, May 17
Sp. Finance Committee Meeting, 5:30 p.m.
WEDNESDAY, May 18
Sp. Rail Committee Meeting, 1:00 p.m.
THURSDAY, May 19
Architectural Review Board Meeting, 8:30 a.m.
City/School Liaison Committee Meeting, 8:30 a.m.
Public Art Commission Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
MONDAY, MAY 23
Sp. City Council Meeting, 5:00 p.m.
TUESDAY, May 24
Sp. Finance Committee Meeting, 12:00 p.m.
Human Relations Commission, 6:00 p.m.
Parks and Recreation Commission, 7:00 p.m.
WEDNESDAY, May 25
Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m.
WEDNESDAY, May 26
Historic Resources Board Meeting, 8:30 a.m.
WEDNESDAY, June 1
Sp. City Council Meeting, 5:00 p.m.
Utilities Advisory Commission, 6:00 p.m.
THURSDAY, June 2
Architectural Review Board Meeting, 8:30 a.m.
MONDAY, June 6
Sp. City Council Meeting, 5:00 p.m.
TUESDAY, June 7
Sp. Finance Committee Meeting, 5:30 p.m.
a
Packet Pg. 335