Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
From: Hsinya ShenTo: Planning Commission; Council, CitySubject: *PETITION TO ENFORCE 415 STUDENT ENROLLMENT COMPLIANCE*Date: Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:10:05 PM
HISTORY:
1971 Castillejahad 200 students.During the past 45 years, there has been 22 different yearsin which Castilleja increased enrollment.15 of those years were illegal increases in which the city did not enforce the Conditional Use Permit (CUP).Castillejahas violated the Conditional Use Permit for 15 consecutive years.Beginning this September it will be in violation for 16 consecutive years.The City Council has done nothing to enforce themaximum enrollment of 415 students.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
Current enrollment is 23 students over the approved 415students.City Council, by not enforcing the CUP,is making a mockery of the CUP process.City Council by failing to enforceits' own approved CUPis pitting neighbors and Castilleja against each other.
It is time for City Councilto enforcethe 415 student CUP for the next 15 years, to make up for the lost 15 years in which the school violated the CUP.We Palo Alto citizens are 100% supportive of the current CUP, which allows for 415 students.We instruct City Council to enforce the currentCUP , allowing for 415 students for the next 15 years.
Sincerely Yours,
Hsinya Shen
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
New signatures
From: [email protected]: Planning CommissionSubject: 10 more people signed “Enforce the CUP: Keep Castilleja Enrollment at 415”Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 8:04:12 AM
Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission – This petitionaddressed to you on Change.org has new activity. See progress andrespond to the campaign's supporters.
Enforce the CUP: Keep Castilleja Enrollment at 415Petition by PNQLnow.org · 10 supporters
10 more people signedin the last 6 days
View petition activity
RECENT SUPPORTERS
Wenjun ShenPalo Alto, CA · Apr 19, 2017
They affect the traffic on our street
Jainy RockwellPalo Alto, CA · Apr 16, 2017
We have enough traffic as it is now! Why does this school get away withbreaking laws time after time?
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
Rekha DasPalo Alto, CA · Apr 14, 2017
Abuse of permit
Roberto PeonPalo Alto, CA · Apr 14, 2017
For 16 years Castilleja has been violating the terms of their CUP, thustreating the city and its residents unfairly. The CUP must be enforced ifanyone is to believe that CUPs actually have any force.
Dennis PeeryPalo Alto, CA · Apr 14, 2017
Simply want the city to enforce the CUP
View all 10 supporters
CHANGE.ORG FOR DECISION MAKERS
On Change.org, decision makers like you connect directly with peoplearound the world to resolve issues. Respond to let the people petitioningyou know you're listening, say whether you agree with their call to action,or ask them for more information. Learn more.
This notification was sent to [email protected], the addresslisted as the decision maker contact by the petition starter. If this is incorrect, pleasepost a response to let the petition starter know.
Change.org · 548 Market St #29993, San Francisco, CA 94104-5401, USA
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
From: Carolyn SchmarzoTo: Planning CommissionCc: Bill Schmarzo; Carolyn SchmarzoSubject: EIR for Castilleja proposed expansion planDate: Thursday, April 13, 2017 6:01:50 PM
Dear Transportation and Planning Commission,
The purpose of this letter is to ask the EIR to study the following issues related to theCastilleja proposed expansion plan. 1. TRAFFICThis project will bring more traffic into an already congested area. During theconstruction phase the traffic will be comprised of heavy construction trucks, dumptrucks hauling dirt and debris, to be followed by cement trucks, and trucks haulinglarge equipment and building materials. This kind of traffic is especially sinister, as it will jeopardize the safety and well beingof Palo Altos Public school children en route to Palo Alto High, Jordon Middle, WalterHayes and Addison Elementary schools. It will threaten all riders and walkers onBryant Sr. The extra traffic will increase gridlock on Embarcadero, Churchill and EL Camino. This gridlock will result in frustrated additional traffic throughout all of old Palo Alto(Emerson, Waverly, Cowper, Tennyson, Seale Middlefield and Oregon Expressway. 2. POLLUTION-AIR QUALITYThe demolition of buildings on the Castilleja campus will add vast amounts ofunknown particulates into the air (asbestos and lead are real possibilities!), thuscreating a health risk to all nearby: residents, bicyclists, and visitors to GambleGardens. The removal of so many trees adds to the air pollution, they filter carbon,reduce smog and produce oxygen. Wood burning fires and barbeques are prohibitedfor the majority of the year in California, so why would this contamination be okay?! 3. POLLLUTION-NOISEThe destruction of 100 trees, with chippers and chain saws, demolition of largebuildings and a swimming pool ,will create and spectacularly, unnerving , loud warzone like environment! 4. DIMINISHED PROPERTY VALUESThis will be a minimum a 6 yearlong project. It will create a construction zone for theneighborhood and thus diminish property values for all who live nearby. Just theappearance and sounds of the construction produce an undesirable neighborhood. (Ihave purchased a home twice in PA and if I had looked at property near this kind ofconstruction site my response would be no way !)
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
The removal the mass removal of trees reduces the value of the homeowners’property. According to Canopy International ”Homes landscaped with trees sell morequickly and are worth 5%to 15% more than homes without trees. Where the entirestreet is tree-lined, homes may be worth 25% more.” 5. WILLFULL VIOLATION OF R-1 ZONE CODEThe area is zoned residential. The city needs to honor this code. To approve thisproject violates the covenant between the property owners who have invested in PaloAlto and the city. Yes, my home is near a school, but the neighborhood is zoned R1residential, will be a safe purchase. To intentionally break this code sends a badmessage to prospective buyers, oh this is zoned residential, hmm but what will thecity do next? Castilleja has been boarding students for about 20 years. The zoningcode has already been bent enough please do not break it. 6. LAWSUITS FOR COMPENSATORY PROPERTY DAMAGESTo approve this proposal and allow Castilleja to permanently damage the livability,desirability and value of the neighborhood will leave the city of Palo Alto open tolawsuits for compensatory property damages. Calling all lawyers! 7. LACK OF PUBLIC BENEFITCastilleja offers no quantitative benefit to Palo Alto and its residents. It serves onlyabout 100 girls, O boys, (girls matter and so do boys) Palo Alto residents are not toaccess its facilities, neither our seniors nor our children are allowed to walk throughthe grounds, swim in their pool, no venues for music, theater, or use the gymnasiumfor sports -- they are a private, closed and exclusive community. Their expansion willharm the neighborhood. 8. GREEDY CASTILLEJAThe diminished property values will allow Castilleja to purchase property at bargainbasement prices thus enabling more growth (Castilleja has already attempted topurchase homes in the neighborhood). 9. LOSS OF REVENUEAs Castilleja acquires homes for its expansion the city of Palo Alto will lose propertytaxes. Castilleja with its nonprofit status pays NO property taxes and uses our entireinfrastructure. After the construction the roads will sustain heavy damage from theexcessive equipment used. 10. EMOTIONAL DURESSTo witness the physical and financial destruction of ones home and neighborhood is asoul bludgeoning experience. Trees have been shown to lower blood pressure andstress, but they have been removed. In summary, Dear Transportation and Planning Commission: Please protect the integrity of the city, the goodwill and trust of Palo Altos tax paying
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
property owners by honoring the R1 residential zone code. Please protect all Palo Altans, especially our public school students from dangeroustraffic, air and noise pollution. Please protect the property owners’ investments and ensure that the value of theirhomes is not compromised. Please protect the cities’ budget. Please protect our physical and emotional well being and deny Castilleja thisexpansion proposal. Respectfully yours,Carolyn and Bill Schmarzo
Palo Alto, CA
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
From: [email protected]: Planning CommissionCc: French, AmySubject: EIR Scoping for Castilleja Project - Please study these impactsDate: Friday, April 14, 2017 1:58:56 PM
Hello Palo Alto PTC,Thank you for all of your efforts on this project.
I request that the EIR for the Castilleja project study the CUMULATIVE impact ofparking measures being taken in adjacent neighborhoods and how they, together withthis new project, will impact neighborhood parking. Specifically, as residential permits(RPPs) become more widespread, people are parking just outside these zones, whichnow includes the area just south of Embarcadero Road. And this goes from Alma toWaverley, from Kingsley to Tennyson (and beyond). The Southgate area may soonget a RPP which will impact this area immensely. Already, Churchill and Emerson arebeing used as parking lots by Paly and this will only get worse.
I request that the EIR for the Castilleja project study the bicycle traffic flow on BryantStreet, and how the construction and new garage would impact bicycle safety and theoverall integrity of the bike boulevard. There will be hundreds of additional car tripsper day after construction, but the most dangerous time may be during construction.The EIR should study bicycle safety DURING construction as well as after.
I request that the EIR for the Castilleja project study the impact of an undergroundgarage on driver behaviors and related safety issues. The current proposal indicatesthat traffic will line up along Embarcadero Road to access the garage from Bryant,and exit onto Emerson, then back onto Embarcadero, which is a blind corner, withcars traveling at high rates of speed, often over the speed limit. The right hand laneon Embarcadero could be backed up to where it is unsafe or impossible for cars to re-enter Embarcadero as they leave. Castilleja maintains that cars will move throughdropoff and pickup zones at the same rate of speed currently being observed onsurface streets. This could be a gross misjudgment. Once drivers who useEmbarcardero know about the traffic pileups and slowdowns, they may find alternateroutes through neighborhood streets, making the situation worse than it is now andadded new safety issues. Drivers may decide to avoid the 10 minutes it takes to getthrough the garage and drop off their student on a surrounding street. The EIR shouldreference at least two case studies of underground garages in residential areas, andshould reference at least two studies about driver behaviors entering and exiting anunderground garage, compared to surface streets and what the resulting timedifference may be.
I request that the EIR for the Castilleja project study the impact on evacuating thepremises and allowing access for emergency vehicles on surrounding neighborhoodsin the event of an emergency. With such a high density of vehicles in a one blockradius of the school, safety issues could be exacerbated.
I request that the EIR for the Castilleja project study the impact of construction and
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
most importantly on Embarcadero Road. The impact will be felt from Highway 101 toHighway 280, through the Palo Alto corridor. How many truck trips per day, from 4amto 10pm, where they will be staged? What is the impact of the dust, pollution, andnoise for a R1 neighborhood? What is the impact on the students who are on siteduring the day? What safeguards would be in place when deadlines are missed andconstruction is extended?
Thank you for your thorough considerations in this matter. This is my home we aretalking about.
Regards,Jim Poppy
Ave (39 years)
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
From: Kimberley WongTo: Nelson Ng; Kathy Layendecker; Carla Befera; Alan Cooper; bthazlett; Bruce McLeod; Tom Shannon; Nancy Tuck;
Yoriko KishimotoCc: French, Amy; Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James; Planning CommissionSubject: Re: Meeting with Castilleja re: plan updatesDate: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 4:41:55 PM
Dear Kathy,
After learning from Ms. Amy French that Castilleja would be submitting documents onApril 17th and your email below further confirming an updated Master Plan, weworked with Ms. Hillary Gitelman to secure a two week extension from Mr. Jim Keenefrom the April 15 PTC public comment deadline.
Today is April 19th, two days after Castilleja should have submitted the updated plan.The City of Palo Alto still does not have the updated plan for the public to review. Theneighbors have consistently asked for greater transparency of the process. And thatincludes full and timely access to Castilleja's plans, revisions and the proper reviewwindow during which the public can offer informed comments to shape the plans thattruly have our quality of life in mind.
When Castilleja submitted the original Master Plan to the City on June 30th 2016,details of the Master Plan were only unveiled for the first time on June 22nd, 2016. This is a far cry from Castilleja's claim in the application "Castilleja has workedextensively with its neighbors to develop a Master Plan...". We are asking Castilleja tostop employing these type of tactics. This review is a public and open process. Allcitizens of Palo Alto should have a chance to comment when the plan is ready forsubmission. That cannot happen if Castilleja tries to hand pick a selected few. Wewould like Castilleja to make genuine efforts to come up with a plan that will allowCastilleja and the all the neighbors to coexist in harmony.
Please submit the updated Master Plan to Amy French to allow the citizens of PaloAlto time for review during the remaining 12 calendar days of the extended publicreview period which now ends April 28, 2017. Please let us know the date you plan tosubmit your updated plans to the City.
Respectfully, Kimberley and Nelson
From: Nelson Ng <[email protected]>To: Kathy Layendecker <[email protected]>; Carla Befera <[email protected]>; Alan Cooper<[email protected]>; bthazlett <[email protected]>; Yoriko Kishimoto <[email protected]>;Bruce McLeod <[email protected]>; Tom Shannon <[email protected]>; Nancy Tuck<[email protected]>; Kimberley Wong <[email protected]> Cc: "French, Amy" <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:43 PMSubject: Re: Meeting with Castilleja re: plan updates
Kathy,
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
Thanks for the invitation. Given the Castilleja Expansion application is part of apublic process and Castilleja's updated plan is ready for submission, wouldn't it bemore appropriate to submit the updated plan instead of a private briefing? In orderto allow time for the public to review the updated plan and submit additional input toensure the EIR will include the necessary studies, please also ask the City to extendthe public feedback deadline for the EIR scoping.
Regards
Nelson and Kimberley
From: Kathy Layendecker <[email protected]>To: Carla Befera <[email protected]>; Alan Cooper <[email protected]>;bthazlett <[email protected]>; Yoriko Kishimoto <[email protected]>; BruceMcLeod <[email protected]>; Nelson <[email protected]>; Tom Shannon<[email protected]>; Nancy Tuck <[email protected]>; Kimberley Wong<[email protected]> Cc: "French, Amy" <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 3:22 PMSubject: Meeting with Castilleja re: plan updates
Dear Neighbor,As a member of our expanded small working group, we'd like to invite you to hear about some updates to ourMaster Plan. As you may know, the public comment period for the Environmental Impact Reportcloses tomorrow and Castilleja will submit refinements to our Master Plan as part of that process.Please join several Castilleja Board Members including Board Chair Ken Hirsch to discuss these plan updates onMonday, April 17th from 6:00-7:00 p.m. at Lockey House 1263 Emerson Street.Please RSVP by responding to this email.Best,Kathy-- Kathy LayendeckerChief Financial and Operating OfficerCastilleja Schoolo 650.470.7751
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
From: Kathy LayendeckerTo: Kimberley WongCc: Nelson Ng; Carla Befera; Alan Cooper; bthazlett; Bruce McLeod; Tom Shannon; Nancy Tuck; Yoriko Kishimoto;
French, Amy; Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James; Planning CommissionSubject: Re: Meeting with Castilleja re: plan updatesDate: Thursday, April 20, 2017 10:30:58 AM
Hi Kimberley,Thank you for your note. Our architect needs extra time to make some refinements to the plan.We intend to submit by the end of next week and have asked the City to extend the commentperiod by two weeks (until May 12th) to allow time for neighbors to review and comment onthe revised plan.Best,Kathy
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Kimberley Wong <[email protected]> wrote:Dear Kathy,
After learning from Ms. Amy French that Castilleja would be submitting documentson April 17th and your email below further confirming an updated Master Plan, weworked with Ms. Hillary Gitelman to secure a two week extension from Mr. JimKeene from the April 15 PTC public comment deadline.
Today is April 19th, two days after Castilleja should have submitted the updatedplan. The City of Palo Alto still does not have the updated plan for the public toreview. The neighbors have consistently asked for greater transparency of theprocess. And that includes full and timely access to Castilleja's plans, revisionsand the proper review window during which the public can offer informed commentsto shape the plans that truly have our quality of life in mind.
When Castilleja submitted the original Master Plan to the City on June 30th 2016,details of the Master Plan were only unveiled for the first time on June 22nd, 2016. This is a far cry from Castilleja's claim in the application "Castilleja has workedextensively with its neighbors to develop a Master Plan...". We are asking Castilleja tostop employing these type of tactics. This review is a public and open process. Allcitizens of Palo Alto should have a chance to comment when the plan is ready forsubmission. That cannot happen if Castilleja tries to hand pick a selected few. Wewould like Castilleja to make genuine efforts to come up with a plan that will allowCastilleja and the all the neighbors to coexist in harmony.
Please submit the updated Master Plan to Amy French to allow the citizens of PaloAlto time for review during the remaining 12 calendar days of the extended publicreview period which now ends April 28, 2017. Please let us know the date you planto submit your updated plans to the City.
Respectfully, Kimberley and Nelson
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
From: Nelson Ng <[email protected]>To: Kathy Layendecker <[email protected]>; Carla Befera <[email protected]>; AlanCooper <[email protected]>; bthazlett <[email protected]>; Yoriko Kishimoto<[email protected]>; Bruce McLeod <[email protected]>; Tom Shannon<[email protected]>; Nancy Tuck <[email protected]>; Kimberley Wong<[email protected]> Cc: "French, Amy" <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:43 PMSubject: Re: Meeting with Castilleja re: plan updates
Kathy, Thanks for the invitation. Given the Castilleja Expansion application is part of apublic process and Castilleja's updated plan is ready for submission, wouldn't it bemore appropriate to submit the updated plan instead of a private briefing? In orderto allow time for the public to review the updated plan and submit additional input toensure the EIR will include the necessary studies, please also ask the City toextend the public feedback deadline for the EIR scoping.
Regards
Nelson and Kimberley
From: Kathy Layendecker <[email protected]>To: Carla Befera <[email protected]>; Alan Cooper <[email protected]>;bthazlett <[email protected]>; Yoriko Kishimoto <[email protected]>;Bruce McLeod <[email protected]>; Nelson <[email protected]>; TomShannon <[email protected]>; Nancy Tuck <[email protected]>; KimberleyWong <[email protected]> Cc: "French, Amy" <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 3:22 PMSubject: Meeting with Castilleja re: plan updates
Dear Neighbor,As a member of our expanded small working group, we'd like to invite you to hear about some updates to ourMaster Plan. As you may know, the public comment period for the Environmental Impact Reportcloses tomorrow and Castilleja will submit refinements to our Master Plan as part of that process.Please join several Castilleja Board Members including Board Chair Ken Hirsch to discuss these plan updateson Monday, April 17th from 6:00-7:00 p.m. at Lockey House 1263 Emerson Street.Please RSVP by responding to this email.Best,Kathy-- Kathy LayendeckerChief Financial and Operating OfficerCastilleja Schoolo 650.470.7751
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
-- Kathy LayendeckerChief Financial and Operating OfficerCastilleja Schoolo 650.470.7751
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
From: Gitelman, HillaryTo: [email protected]: French, Amy; Keene, James; City Attorney; Planning Commission; Council, CitySubject: RE: Request for Extension on EIR Scoping LetterDate: Friday, April 14, 2017 12:22:32 PM
Ms. Sylvester, While there is nothing untoward or “prejudicial” about the City’s scoping process as you suggest, theCity Manager has asked that we extend the comment period two weeks until the close of businesson Friday, April 28. I will ask staff to update the website accordingly and it would be a great help if you could help usspread the word. Many thanks, Hillary
Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301T: 650.329.2321 |E: [email protected] Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 9:17 PMTo: Gitelman, HillaryCc: French, Amy; Keene, James; City Attorney; Planning Commission; Council, CitySubject: Re: Request for Extension on EIR Scoping Letter April 13, 2017 Dear Ms. Gitelman, I have received your denial of my April 7th request for a two-week extension on thepublic comment period for the Castilleja Expansion Plan. As you read in mycorrespondence, I had originally requested this extension because of the latesubmittal of documents by Castilleja School, two days after the established Scopingdeadline of April 15th for public comments. I believe such a denial violates CEQA’sintent to engage public stakeholders in a full and robust manner as to decisionsaffecting their environment. Initially while the application process runs “parallel” to the Environmental ImpactReview (EIR) process, the public is nevertheless held to the established EIR Scoping
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
deadline of April 15th for comments if we want them to have legal bearing. Manyneighbors are not interested in submitting “informal” comments on the project as yousuggest if they do not carry the weight of law behind them. It is unclear why when Castilleja’s expansion project will have such far-reachingenvironmental consequences to an R-1 neighborhood, necessitating an EIR, the Cityis not establishing reasonable deadlines for the public review process? Oncedocuments have been filed by the applicant it would then seem appropriate to set adeadline for the public comment period, not before knowing when such potentiallycrucial documents are in hand. I find the City’s current Scoping process prejudicial to neighbors of Castilleja Schoolwho are expending significant sums of time and money on legal fees and expertswhose consultation may become null and void once new documents are submitted bythe school, now projected for two days after the comment period. The precedent thatcould be established by the City in allowing Castilleja to submit documents afterestablished deadlines for the public and not thereby providing a reasonable extensionperiod for the the community to review and comment on such documents sends avery chilling message to residents about their First Amendment rights in mattersdirectly affecting their well-being. As Castilleja has been working with their architectfor several years along with a group of specialists in various related fields on theexpansion project, it is truly puzzling why such documents could not have been madeavailable to the public earlier allowing a reasonable review and comment period. In regard to your statement about delays to date in the Scoping process, for purposesof clarification, I would like to state that the delay in the Scoping Session fromFebruary 6th to March 8th was made by the City because of the Mayor’s State of theCity Address and the written comment period changed from March 15th to April 15th
again because of a decision by the City not a request from the neighborhood. As final Scoping comments are due by Saturday, April 15th, I look forward to aresponse from you by the end of the working day tomorrow. Sincerely,Mary Sylvester
From: "Hillary Gitelman" <[email protected]>To: "MARYSYLVESTER" <[email protected]>, "Amy French"<[email protected]>Cc: "James Keene" <[email protected]>, "City Attorney"
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
<[email protected]>, "Planning Commission"<[email protected]>Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 11:45:30 AMSubject: RE: Request for Extension on EIR Scoping Letter Ms. Sylvester: Thanks for your email request. Amy is out of the office today, so I thought I would jump in andrespond. The EIR process runs in parallel to the application process and it is quite typical for an application tobecome more detailed and to evolve somewhat during the EIR process. (In fact, we like it whenproposals are adjusted in response to community input and environmental review!) We encourageyou to submit comments about the scope of the environmental analysis by the deadline of April 15based on what you currently know about the school’s proposal. The comment period has alreadybeen extended well beyond the required 30-day period and you will have other opportunities duringthe review process to provide additional comments. Additional formal opportunities for publiccomment will include the comment period on a Draft EIR as well as noticed public hearings on theapplication(s) at some point in the future. Also, informal comments and questions about the processand the proposal can always be sent to staff by email. This project has generated lots of suchcommunications, and we endeavor to respond as time permits. Thanks for your interest in this project, Hillary
Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301T: 650.329.2321 |E: [email protected] Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 10:43 AMTo: French, AmyCc: Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James; City Attorney; Planning CommissionSubject: Request for Extension on EIR Scoping Letter Dear Ms. French, I am writing on behalf of a group of neighbors, including myself, who reside in theimmediate vicinity of Castilleja School. We are requesting at least a two-weekextension on the Scoping Letter of the Environmental Impact Report from the date
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
Castilleja submits a complete application for their CUP and Expansion Plan, whetherthat be from April 17th as indicated by the school or later. We, as immediateneighbors of Castilleja School who will be significantly impacted by this proposedExpansion Plan and possible new CUP, will need time to review the newdocumentation submitted by the school and may need to seek additional expertconsultation as well as legal advice. The public, including Castilleja School, has known for over 30 days that April 15th isthe deadline for Scoping comments. It is perplexing why the school believes it isacceptable to submit highly relevant documents for the approval process 2 days afterthe closing date for public comments. And it causes further questioning of the City'simpartiality in this matter by allowing this delayed submittal and not therebyimmediately extending as a matter of course the public comment period? I look forward to your prompt response. Appreciatively, Mary E. Sylvester
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
From: [email protected]: Gitelman, HillaryCc: French, Amy; Keene, James; City Attorney; Planning Commission; Council, CitySubject: Re: Request for Extension on EIR Scoping LetterDate: Thursday, April 13, 2017 9:16:37 PM
April 13, 2017
Dear Ms. Gitelman, I have received your denial of my April 7th request for a two-week extension on thepublic comment period for the Castilleja Expansion Plan. As you read in mycorrespondence, I had originally requested this extension because of the latesubmittal of documents by Castilleja School, two days after the established Scopingdeadline of April 15th for public comments. I believe such a denial violates CEQA’sintent to engage public stakeholders in a full and robust manner as to decisionsaffecting their environment. Initially while the application process runs “parallel” to the Environmental ImpactReview (EIR) process, the public is nevertheless held to the established EIR Scopingdeadline of April 15th for comments if we want them to have legal bearing. Manyneighbors are not interested in submitting “informal” comments on the project as yousuggest if they do not carry the weight of law behind them. It is unclear why when Castilleja’s expansion project will have such far-reachingenvironmental consequences to an R-1 neighborhood, necessitating an EIR, the Cityis not establishing reasonable deadlines for the public review process? Oncedocuments have been filed by the applicant it would then seem appropriate to set adeadline for the public comment period, not before knowing when such potentiallycrucial documents are in hand. I find the City’s current Scoping process prejudicial to neighbors of Castilleja Schoolwho are expending significant sums of time and money on legal fees and expertswhose consultation may become null and void once new documents are submitted bythe school, now projected for two days after the comment period. The precedent thatcould be established by the City in allowing Castilleja to submit documents afterestablished deadlines for the public and not thereby providing a reasonable extensionperiod for the the community to review and comment on such documents sends avery chilling message to residents about their First Amendment rights in mattersdirectly affecting their well-being. As Castilleja has been working with their architectfor several years along with a group of specialists in various related fields on theexpansion project, it is truly puzzling why such documents could not have been madeavailable to the public earlier allowing a reasonable review and comment period. In regard to your statement about delays to date in the Scoping process, for purposesof clarification, I would like to state that the delay in the Scoping Session fromFebruary 6th to March 8th was made by the City because of the Mayor’s State of the
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
City Address and the written comment period changed from March 15th to April 15th
again because of a decision by the City not a request from the neighborhood. As final Scoping comments are due by Saturday, April 15th, I look forward to aresponse from you by the end of the working day tomorrow.
Sincerely,Mary Sylvester
From: "Hillary Gitelman" <[email protected]>To: "MARYSYLVESTER" <[email protected]>, "Amy French"<[email protected]>Cc: "James Keene" <[email protected]>, "City Attorney"<[email protected]>, "Planning Commission"<[email protected]>Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 11:45:30 AMSubject: RE: Request for Extension on EIR Scoping Letter
Ms. Sylvester:
Thanks for your email request. Amy is out of the office today, so I thought I would jump in andrespond.
The EIR process runs in parallel to the application process and it is quite typical for an application tobecome more detailed and to evolve somewhat during the EIR process. (In fact, we like it whenproposals are adjusted in response to community input and environmental review!) We encourageyou to submit comments about the scope of the environmental analysis by the deadline of April 15based on what you currently know about the school’s proposal. The comment period has alreadybeen extended well beyond the required 30-day period and you will have other opportunities duringthe review process to provide additional comments. Additional formal opportunities for publiccomment will include the comment period on a Draft EIR as well as noticed public hearings on theapplication(s) at some point in the future. Also, informal comments and questions about the processand the proposal can always be sent to staff by email. This project has generated lots of suchcommunications, and we endeavor to respond as time permits.
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
Thanks for your interest in this project,
Hillary
Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301T: 650.329.2321 |E: [email protected]
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 10:43 AMTo: French, AmyCc: Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James; City Attorney; Planning CommissionSubject: Request for Extension on EIR Scoping Letter
Dear Ms. French,
I am writing on behalf of a group of neighbors, including myself, who reside in theimmediate vicinity of Castilleja School. We are requesting at least a two-weekextension on the Scoping Letter of the Environmental Impact Report from the dateCastilleja submits a complete application for their CUP and Expansion Plan, whetherthat be from April 17th as indicated by the school or later. We, as immediateneighbors of Castilleja School who will be significantly impacted by this proposedExpansion Plan and possible new CUP, will need time to review the newdocumentation submitted by the school and may need to seek additional expertconsultation as well as legal advice.
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
The public, including Castilleja School, has known for over 30 days that April 15th isthe deadline for Scoping comments. It is perplexing why the school believes it isacceptable to submit highly relevant documents for the approval process 2 days afterthe closing date for public comments. And it causes further questioning of the City'simpartiality in this matter by allowing this delayed submittal and not therebyimmediately extending as a matter of course the public comment period?
I look forward to your prompt response.
Appreciatively,
Mary E. Sylvester
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
From: Alan CooperTo: French, AmyCc: bthazlett; Yoriko Kishimoto; Kimberley Wong; Nancy Tuck; Tom Shannon; Nelson; Bruce McLeod; Alan Cooper;
Carla Befera; Kathy Layendecker; Planning CommissionSubject: Request for extension of Castilleja EIR input by at least 7 daysDate: Thursday, April 13, 2017 6:00:10 PM
Dear Amy
Today, I received a notice that Castilleja plans to submit changes to their Master Plan, and then meet withneighbors 1 day AFTER the EIR deadline for submission of comments (see below).
Because their original submission was incomplete and inaccurate, it was not possible to fully andaccurately comment on the EIR scope.
Hence, I formally request that more time, at least 7 days, be given for community input on the CastillejaEIR.
Thank you,
Alan Cooper270 Kellogg Ave
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 3:22 PM, Kathy Layendecker <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Neighbor,As a member of our expanded small working group, we'd like to invite you to hear about some updates to ourMaster Plan. As you may know, the public comment period for the Environmental Impact Reportcloses tomorrow and Castilleja will submit refinements to our Master Plan as part of that process.Please join several Castilleja Board Members including Board Chair Ken Hirsch to discuss these plan updates onMonday, April 17th from 6:00-7:00 p.m. at Lockey House 1263 Emerson Street.Please RSVP by responding to this email.Best,Kathy-- Kathy LayendeckerChief Financial and Operating OfficerCastilleja Schoolo 650.470.7751
Planning & Transportation Commission Emails 4-26-17
