Board of Education Meetings Are Cablecast Live on Cable

PLACE: BOARD ROOM – ADMINISTRATION BUILDING PALO ALTO UNIFIED 25 CHURCHILL AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION

DATE: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010 AGENDA TIME: 12:30 P.M. – OPEN SESSION SPECIAL MEETING

Board of Education meetings are cablecast live on cable services CHANNEL 28 and webcast live on http://communitymediacenter.net/watch/schedules Board materials are available for review on the district web site at http://www.pausd.org/community/board/agenda.shtml or at the District Office, 25 Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306.

This meeting will not be televised.

Should you need special accommodations to participate in the meeting, please contact the Superintendent’s Office at 650.329.3737 or [email protected] Community members wishing to address the Board are allotted THREE minutes per speaker. Should more than 20 people wish to address any one topic, the Board may elect to allot a shorter time per speaker. Materials presented at the Board meeting will be copied and provided to Board members after the meeting. Additional instructions are listed on the back page of this agenda.

I. OPENING A. Call to Order B. Approval of Agenda Order Action II. STUDY SESSION A. 2010-11 Budget Balancing Plan Discussion 11 Staff will present information regarding the process and recommendation for reducing the budget for next school year. The materials are presented in the full Board packet as Item 11, where the discussion will continue at the regular meeting that evening. III. ADJOURN

02.09.10 Page 1

PLACE: BOARD ROOM – ADMINISTRATION BUILDING PALO ALTO UNIFIED 25 CHURCHILL AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION

DATE: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010 AGENDA TIME: 5:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION REGULAR MEETING 6:30 P.M. OPEN SESSION

Most Board of Education meetings are cablecast live on cable services CHANNEL 28 and webcast live on http://communitymediacenter.net/watch/schedules Board materials are available for review on the district web site at http://www.pausd.org/community/board/agenda.shtml or at the District Office, 25 Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306. Meetings are also available on demand at http://www.communitymediacenter.net/watch/pausd_webcast/PAUSDondemand.html

STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS

ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE AND LEARNING A Create an exceptional learning environment that engages, challenges, and supports all students so that they thrive and achieve their academic potential every year, while preparing them to pursue college and other post-secondary opportunities to be global citizens.

STAFF RECRUITMENT AND DEVELOPMENT B Create an exceptional teaching environment by recruiting, developing, and retaining the most talented staff.

BUDGET TRENDS AND INFRASTRUCTURE C Be prudent stewards of our resources through rigorous planning and budgeting and build further resources by enhancing public and private support for public education.

D GOVERNANCE AND COMMUNICATION Create a focused, transparent governance process that is a model of informed communication and decision making.

I. OPENING A. Call to Order B. Recess to Closed Session (Conference Room A) 5:30 p.m. Action Anyone wishing to address the Board regarding Closed Session items may do so at this time. Items listed below may be discussed in closed session. Items [√] marked are scheduled for discussion at this meeting. All proceedings are reported to the public in open session where

action is taken or staff is given direction.

[ ] 1. Employee Evaluation pursuant to Government Code §54957 [ ] 2. Employee Appointment pursuant to Government Code §54957 [ ] 3. Liability Claims pursuant to Government Code §54961 [√] 4. Conference with Labor Negotiator, Dr. Scott Bowers, regarding PAEA, CSEA, and Non-represented groups pursuant to Government Code §54957.6 [ ] 5. Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code §54956 [√] 6. Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release pursuant to Government Code §54957 02.09.10 Page 1

[√] 7. Anticipated Litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9 [ ] 8. Student Discipline C. Approval of Agenda Order Action II. REPORTS Information A. Staff and Student Successes 1 B. Student Board Representative Reports C. Superintendent’s Report III. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Action These items are considered routine and will be approved in one action without discussion. If a Board member requests an item be removed from the Calendar or a citizen wishes to speak to an item, it will be considered under Action Items. A. Certificated Personnel Actions Consent 2 It is recommended the Board approve the certificated personnel actions as presented. B. Classified Personnel Actions Consent 3 It is recommended the Board approve the classified personnel actions as presented. C. Appropriation of Measure A Funds for Computers at All District Schools Consent 4 The Board will discuss appropriating $3,134,745 for the high schools, $2,198,102 for the middle schools, and $3,647,767 for the elementary schools for technology purchases over an eight year period; and appropriating $3,254,192 for use at the District level. Action is scheduled for the February 9 regular meeting. D. Authorization to Issue a Contract in an Amount Not to Exceed $355,000 for a District Consent 5 Student Information System The Board will discuss entering into a contract with Infinite Campus for the implementation, licensing, maintenance, and support of a SIS for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years. Action is scheduled for the February 9 regular meeting. E. Variable Term Waiver for ROP Automotive Mechanics Teacher Consent 6 The Board will discuss authorizing the filing of a Variable Term (English Learner) Waiver for Michael Camicia. Action is scheduled for the February 9 regular meeting. F. Authorization to Issue Addendum No. 5 to Deems Lewis McKinley Architecture Consent 7 The Board will discuss authorizing Addendum No. 5 with DLM Architecture in the amount of $332,350. Action is scheduled for the February 9 regular meeting. G. Agreement Between the Palo Alto Unified School District and the City of Palo Alto Consent 8 Concerning the Public Use, Brokering, and Maintenance of District-Owned Athletic Fields, Tennis Courts, and Basketball Courts Jointly Used by School Students and the General Public The Board will discuss authorizing the joint agreement between the District and City. Action is scheduled for the February 9 regular meeting. H. Approval of Minutes Consent 9 It is recommended the Board approve the minutes for the two meetings of January 12, 2010, and for the two meetings of January 26, 2010. I. Resolutions Consent 10 • Resolution 2009-10.10 – Authorization to Accept American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Federal Program Funds are for the current 2009-10 school year and provides services through the Transition Partnership Program. 02.09.10 Page 2

IV. ACTION / DISCUSSION / INFORMATION ITEMS A. 2010-11 Budget Balancing Plan Discussion 11 Staff will present information regarding the process and recommendation for reducing the budget for next school year. The materials are presented in the full Board packet as Item 11, and continues the discussion will from the afternoon Study Session. B. Progress on Conceptual Design for Fairmeadow Elementary School Discussion 12 Staff will present a report on planning for construction to make Fairmeadow a four strand school. C. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 50 Embarcadero Road, Discussion 13 Palo Alto, California (Palo Alto High School) The Board will discuss adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Palo Alto High School master plan. Action is scheduled for the meeting of February 23, 2010. D. Authorization to Solicit Bids for the Palo Alto High School Multi-use Fields Action 14 The Board will discuss authorizing staff to solicit bids from a pool of prequalified contractors for the Palo Alto High School multi-use field project. Action is scheduled for the February 23, 2010, regular meeting. E. Review and Ratification of Single Plans for Student Achievement (SPSA) Action 15 (formerly School Improvement Plans) and School and Library Improvement Block Grant Budgets (formerly SIP Budgets) for 2009-10 for Gunn and Palo Alto High Schools The Board discussed the SPSAs for the high school at a study session held on January 26, 2010. It is recommended the Board take action to ratify the plans. F. Authorization to Issue Addendum No. 6 to Deems Lewis McKinley Discussion 16 Architecture for Initial Studies for the Football Stadium Renovations at Palo Alto High School The Board will discuss authorize Addendum No. 6 in the amount of $25,000 to perform initial studies for the Football Stadium Renovation at Palo Alto High School. Action is scheduled for the February 23, 2010, regular meeting. G. Changes to Board Bylaws 9270 – Conflict of Interest Discussion 17 The Board will discuss adopting changes to BB 9270 to meet the request of the Santa Clara County Office of County Counsel. Action is scheduled for the February 23 regular meeting. H. 2010 California School Boards Association (CSBA) Delegate Assembly Discussion 18 Election The Board will discuss voting for up to six candidates for the Region 20, Santa Clara County CSBA delegates. Action is planned for the February 23, 2010, regular meeting. V. OPEN FORUM Anyone wishing to address the Board on non-agenda items may do so at this time. Comments are taken as close to 8:30 p.m. as possible. Community members wishing to address the Board are allotted THREE minutes per speaker. Should more than 20 people wish to address any one topic, the Board may elect to allot TWO minutes per speaker. Additional instructions are listed on the back page of this agenda. VI. BOARD MEMBERS’ REPORTS / CORRESPONDENCE / BOARD OPERATIONS / RECOGNITION This is an opportunity for Board members to address activities, correspondence, and operations and to acknowledge or recognize specific programs, activities, or personnel. A. Reports 02.09.10 Page 3

B. Correspondence C. Operations • Possible Future Board Agenda Items Board members may suggest items for placement on future agendas. Consensus D. Acknowledgements and Recognition E. Board Calendar A Closed Session is scheduled for February 23, 2010. The next regular meeting is scheduled February 23, 2010. Topics may include: 2010-11 Budget Balancing Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration for Palo Alto High School Addendum No. 6 for Deems Lewis McKinley BB 9270 – Conflict of Interest CSBA Delegate Assembly Election VII. ADJOURN

02.09.10 Page 4 BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Information 1

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

TO: Board of Education

FROM: Kevin Skelly, Superintendent

SUBJECT: Staff and Student Successes

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Communication and Governance

The following students have been selected as candidates for the United States Presidential Scholars Program. Semifinalists are announced in early April and Scholars in early May.

Palo Alto High School Gunn High School Nicholas J. Gaya Charles C. Chen Isaac N. Plant Andre F. Garrett Lynnelle Ye Shuyan Li Thanh-Ha Nguyen Sanjana Rajan Abhishek Verma Kevin Y. Yang Victor S. Zhu

Students from Palo Alto High School placed third in the 2009 Ciphering Time Trials, a national mathematics contest administered by National Assessment & Testing. Coach Suz Antink prepared students for the competition. Individaul awards were also received.

Jeffrey Ling 11th Place, 9th Grade Division Jeffrey Yan 13th Place, 9th Grade Division Derek Tam 16th Place, 9th Grade Division Allen Zheng 16th Place, 9th Grade Division Grace Fang 23rd Place, 9th Grade Division Bolton Bailey 25th Place, 9th Grade Division Zeyu Liu 6th Place, 10th Grade Division Steven Hu 15th Place, 10th Grade Division Nathan Pinsker 4th Place, 11th Grade Division John Boyle 16th Place, 11th Grade Division Kevin Hu 16th Place, 11th Grade Division Lynnelle Ye 5th Place, 12th Grade Division Nicholas Gaya 10th Place, 12th Grade Division

BOARD OF Attachment: Consent 2

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

Certificated Personnel Items for the Meeting of: February 9, 2010

ACTION ITEMS: I. APPOINTMENTS

NAME EFF. DATE ASSIGNMENT

Substitutes Barden, Coryna 1/28/10 Substitute Teacher Bivas, Albert 1/7/10 Substitute Teacher Brew, William 2/1/10 Substitute Teacher Buddie, Heather 2/3/10 Substitute Teacher Chau, Elaine 12/16/10 Substitute Teacher Dale, Elizabeth 1/13/10 Substitute Teacher Gries, Carmela 1/27/10 Substitute Teacher Hosford, Ashton 1/21/10 Substitute Teacher Martone, Susanna 1/20/10 Substitute Teacher Moore, Thomas 1/14/10 Substitute Teacher Stoloski, Angela 1/12/10 Substitute Teacher Trockel, Eva 1/26/10 Substitute Teacher

NAME EFF. DATE ASSIGNMENT

Hourly None

NAME EFF. DATES ASSIGNMENT

Short Term Assignment None

NAME EFF. DATE ASSIGNMENT TIME EXP. DEGREE UNITS STATUS

Temporary 0 None

NAME EFF. DATE ASSIGNMENT TIME EXP. DEGREE UNITS STATUS

Temporary None

Probationary 0 None

Probationary I None

Probationary II None

Special Contract None

Other None

II. LEAVES

NAME POSITION DURATION TYPE REASON None

III. RESIGNATIONS ACCEPTED

NAME EFF. DATE ASSIGNMENT REASON YRS. OF SERVICE None

IV. REDUCTION IN CONTRACT

NAME PRESENT STATUS NEW STATUS EFFECTIVE None

V. RELEASE OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES

NAME EFF. DATE ASSIGNMENT TIME REASON None

VI. RELEASE OF PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES

NAME EFF. DATE ASSIGNMENT TIME REASON None

INFORMATION ITEMS: I. CHANGE OF STATUS

NAME PRESENT STATUS NEW STATUS EFF. DATE Sharpe, Arlyn Teacher/Palo Alto—40% Teacher/Palo Alto—60% 1/25/10

RECOMMENDATIONS: The Administration recommends approval of Certificated Personnel Action Items as presented.

(2/9/10) – 2 – BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Consent 3

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

Classified Personnel Items for the Meeting of: February 9, 2010

ACTION ITEMS:

I. APPOINTMENTS NAME EFF. DATE ASSIGNMENT TIME STATUS

Regular None

NAME EFF. DATES ASSIGNMENT

Short-Term Assignments Binkley, Wesley 9/14/09 – 11/03/09 Non-credentialed Coach—Gunn Thayer, Matthew 3/10/09 – 5/10/09 Non-credentialed Coach—Gunn

NAME EFF. DATE ASSIGNMENT

Hourly Allen, Eleanora 11/16/09 Student Assistant—Vocational Education/Lockheed Arriaga, Juan 12/18/09 WWP Landscape Crew Leader—Maintenance & Operations Austin, Justin 1/4/10 Student Assistant—Greendell/Vocational Education Carter, Crystal 1/4/10 Student Assistant—Greendell/Vocational Education Clark, Nicholas 1/4/10 Student Assistant—Greendell/Vocational Education Deneen, Sandra 1/5/10 Substitute Lunch Server/Record Keeper—Food Service Kaiser, Brad 1/7/10 Accompanist—Various Saldana, John 2/2/10 Substitute Custodian--Various Shaw, Yvonna 12/1/09 AVID tutor—Jordan Vallem, Robert 12/18/09 WWP Landscape Crew Leader—Maintenance & Operations Wells, Jacqueline 1/4/10 Student Assistant—Greendell/Vocational Education

II. LEAVES NAME POSITION DURATION REASON Luke, Michael Student Attendant/Special Education—Gunn 2/8/10 – 6/10/10 To Study Manger, Janet Instructional Aide—Hays 1/28/10 – 3/31/10 Medical/Family

III. TERMINATIONS NAME EFF. DATE ASSIGNMENT REASON YRS. OF SERVICE Guy, Elizabeth 2/3/10 Student Attendant/Special Education—Terman Leaving Area 3 Yrs., 5 Mos. Linebarger, Linda 4/30/10 Health/Attendance Clark—Terman Retirement 21 Yrs. Lu, Yineng 1/31/10 Student Attendant/Special Education—Terman Stay Home 5 Mos. Yanez, Rosa 6/14/10 Instructional Assistant—Palo Alto Retirement 10 Yrs., 3 Mos.

RECOMMENDATIONS: The Administration recommends approval of Classified Personnel Action Items as presented.

INFORMATION ITEMS: I. CHANGE OF STATUS NAME EFF. DATE STATUS ASSIGNMENT Chi, Tee 2/1/10 From: Custodian I/Palo Alto—8 Hrs./Day To: Elementary Custodian/El Carmelo—8 Hrs./Day

(2/9/10) 1 BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Consent 4

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

TO: Dr. Kevin Skelly, Superintendent of Schools

FROM: Bob Golton, Co-CBO and Bond Program Manager

SUBJECT: Appropriation of Measure A Funds for Computers at All District Schools

One correction has been made to this report as was pointed out at the January 26 discussion. The change is in italics.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Budget Trends and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND Ann Dunkin, Director of Technology, has been working with both the elementary and secondary schools to understand their long term technology needs and to allocate Measure A bond funds to the schools. The IT Department and the schools propose to implement changes to the way technology is currently managed.

In addition, the Technology organization has identified the projects the District IT Measure A bond funds will support and is ready to proceed with appropriating those funds as well.

PROPOSAL Reference here is made to the spreadsheet allocation included in the February 26, 2008, Board item regarding the Bond issue. In that spreadsheet, the amount of $10,157,371 was allocated to technology at the school sites and $3,750,000 was allocated to technology at the District level. Of this amount, as of the start of the school year, $8,980,614 remained for the school sites and $3,254,192 at the District level.

The Technology organization, in conjunction with the schools, has developed the following proposal, based on these numbers.

Measure A bond funds designated for school computers will be expended over the next eight years to support computers for both students and staff. The funds will not meet all student and staff computing needs based on current pricing, but will be close to funding the District’s computing goals. There will be a shortfall of approximately $175,000 in the eighth year for the district as a whole to resolve, but this number will change because it is based on current growth assumptions, cost of computers, and other variables.

The plan is based on a four year life for most computers, one computer per certificated staff member and some classified staff at the sites and one computer for each four students. The plan is based on equal replacement of computers each year over the bond horizon, as a large ‘catch up’ buy now will just create future replacement bubbles.

The district will implement a managed replacement program for staff computers. Under this program, sufficient funds will be held from each school’s budget to replace their staff computers with similar models when they reach four years of age. The remaining funds will be allocated by the site councils or principals in conjunction with IT for replacement of student use computers.

To make the most effective use of our resources, student use computers will be purchased and installed each summer before the school year begins. Computers will be imaged with a standard image, inventoried, and set up at the school sites before the start of school. All schools will have a minimum of one computer, four years old or less, for every four students. Older computers may remain in use to supplement those computers, but will have limited support by IT on a ‘best effort’ basis. Additional new computers may be acquired by schools through donations and grants. However, replacement budgets will be based on a one to four ratio, regardless of any expansion of the installed base.

The funding for 1:4 is based on a mix of computers, but the predominant computer in the mix is a Macbook. Schools may work with IT to fund a different mix of technology, such as PCs or netbooks which allow for the purchase of more units at a lower cost. In this case, these schools’ may reduce the ratio of students per computer.

Regarding the remaining $3,254,192 for District level funding, this principally will be used for the transition to the district’s VoIP (Voice over IP) telephone system. It will also be used, along with other sources of funding, for district-wide computer purchases. Implementation of VoIP will reduce the operating cost for telephone infrastructure significantly. Pricing and plans for this centralized use are being developed. Because of the financial needs of the VoIP project, this amount will need to be supplemented.

With Technology now such an integral part of the educational experience that PAUSD provides, the intent of the IT Department is to identify a sustainable model for funding the district’s ongoing computing needs. The goal is that at the end of the eight year horizon, technology funding would be transitioned into an ongoing source of funding, rather than providing it through one time funds.

FISCAL IMPACT Funds will be allocated to each secondary school based on enrollment. There is a total of $8,980,614 to be allocated. $3,134,745 will be allocated to the two high schools and $2,198,102 will be allocated to the three middle schools. A total of $3,647,767 will be allocated to the elementary schools as a group. Each year approximately one-eighth of the funds will be made available to the schools based on enrollment. The amount of funding each year is based on a projected 2% enrollment growth, so about a 2% per year escalation is built into the allocations.

The allocations for this year for the secondary sites are as shown. The allocation of elementary sites is being finalized.

Gunn $190,777 Paly $185,070 Jordan $ 97,048 JLS $ 95,643 Terman $ 67,312 Elementary Schools $433,087 Note that of these amounts, the Board had approved $48,000 of the high school funds for Gunn and $91,000 of the middle school funds for JLS at its meeting of December 15, 2009.

There is currently $3,254,192 in technology funds available for district level projects.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Board of Education appropriate the remaining Measure A computing funds. It is requested (1) that $3,134,745 be appropriated for the two high schools, $2,198,102 be appropriated for the three middle schools, and $3,647,767 be appropriated for the elementary schools for technology purchases; and (2) the Board approve the 2009-2010 appropriations as shown. Further, it is requested that $3,254,192 be appropriated for use at the District level. Working Draft Spreadsheet This is not a Part of the Resolution Ordering Election and is provided for information only. It was used for discussion purposes only during the fall semester of 2007-08.

Bond No. 1 January 8, 2008

Planned Furnishings and School Modernization Growth Maintenance * Technology Equipment Total

Elementary Schools Addison $2,891,095 $1,406,524 $239,603 $229,000 $4,766,222 Barron Park $2,013,297 $ 641,760 $305,603 $168,300 $3,128,960 Briones $1,937,793 $1,993,467 $383,603 $168,300 $4,483,162 Duveneck $2,255,327 $1,643,608 $341,603 $221,000 $4,461,538 El Carmelo $1,861,671 $ 641,760 $323,603 $168,300 $2,995,334 Escondido $2,461,730 $ 701,925 $345,603 $221,000 $3,730,258 Fairmeadow $2,145,171 $4,853,310 $273,603 $194,650 $7,466,734 Hays $2,646,085 $ 701,925 $331,603 $221,000 $3,900,613 Hoover $4,507,645 $2,352,284 $349,603 $168,300 $7,377,832 Nixon $2,947,771 $3,754,296 $263,603 $194,650 $7,160,320 Ohlone $2,116,244 $2,644,797 $293,603 $212,500 $5,267,144 Palo Verde $1,904,685 $ 641,760 $307,603 $168,300 $3,022,348 Garland $4,735,470 $2,508,875 $500,000 $200,000 $7,942,345 Greendell Selected conversion of portables to permanent classrooms - ALLOWANCE $39,625,004 $39,625,004 Elementary Schools Subtotal $ 34,423,984 $64,109,295 $ 8,000000 $4,259,233 $2,535,300 $113,327,813 Middle Schools Jordan $15,639,468 $3,464,836 $1,155,458 $403,750 $20,663,512 Stanford $16,069,203 $6,155,548 $1,121,458 $403,750 $23,749,959 Terman $ 9,332,485 $4,699,555 $ 663,458 $286,875 $14,982,373 Middle Schools Subtotal $ 41,041,156 $14,319,939 $ 4,000,000 $2,940,373 $1,094,375 $63,395,843 High Schools Gunn $46,651,531 $27,188,029 $1,544,882 $828,750 $76,213,192 Palo Alto $62,014,049 $34,529,496 $1,412,882 $828,750 $98,785,177 High Schools Subtotal $108,665,580 $61,717,525 $ 8,000,000 $2,957,763 $1,657,500 $182,998,368 Central Facilities District Office $3,750,000 $360,000 $4,111,000 Corporation Yard Central Facilities Subtotal $ 1,750,000 $3,750,000 $360,000 $5,860,000 Other Costs Program Management $ 9,206,536 $ 7,007,338 $139,074 $ 56,472 $16,409,419 Other Costs Subtotal $ 9,206,536 $ 7,007,338 $ 217,500 $139,074 $ 56,472

Total $192,337,256 $147,154,97 $21,967,500 $14,046,443 $5,703,647 $382,208,943

Elementary Schools New classroom buildings to replace portables, flex rooms No MP Bldgs Middle Schools Classrooms for growth Gym and modernization High Schools New classroom buildings to replace portables Paly Admin, Haymarket, Library, 900 Bldg, Gyms included for modernization. 2nd gym expansion, and growth classrooms included Gunn IA, Admin, RC, Spangenberg, AC to classrooms and Gym modernization included. Growth classrooms and 2nd gym also included.

This is a working draft that was used for discussion purposes during the fall semester of 2007-08. It reflects an estimate of priorities over the next 10-12 years, both funded and unfunded. During the multi-year planning, public review, and building phases of the proposed Bond program, his information will be updated as current information on enrollment, building conditions, construction costs, and other revenue becomes available. 2/20/2008 BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Consent 5

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

TO: Dr. Kevin Skelly, Superintendent of Schools

FROM: Bob Golton, Co-CBO and Bond Program Manager

SUBJECT: Authorization to Issue a Contract in an Amount Not to Exceed $355,000 for a District Student Information System

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Budget Trends and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND There are number of critical functions schools must perform that involve tracking student data. These include everything from enrolling students in school to generating report cards to completing required state reports. To perform these functions, and many more, schools utilize a Student Information System (SIS).

The District’s current SIS is SASI XP, initially purchased in 1995. This product line was acquired in the course of time by Pearson Education Inc. Recently, Pearson Education, Inc. announced that support for SASI would be discontinued at the end of the 2009-10 school year. At the end of the support life, both technical support and upgrades will end. Among other things, this means the system will not support mandatory changes in state and county reporting. Pearson also indicated they would not provide a direct upgrade path to any of their other products. This meant that PAUSD needed to select a new Student Information System.

Starting in 2008, a group of thirty staff members, including administrators, teachers, and technologists, from across the district began to review alternative solutions. In late 2008 and early 2009, a number of products were reviewed, including Pearson’s new product, PowerSchool, and other widely used products. In the fall of 2009, the Interim Director brought the team back together to review the previous finalists and also brought Infinite Campus into the discussion. Finally, in November and December of 2009, Ann Dunkin, the new Director of Technology, brought the full team back together along with additional staff and district parents. This expanded group of 35 people reviewed and evaluated products.

In early December, the group selected Infinite Campus as the finalist. The team then completed due diligence, including technical and security assessments and reference checks. Infinite Campus received positive results on all assessments and reference checks.

PROPOSAL The group has chosen to recommend Infinite Campus to the Board. It has been adopted statewide in four states. The Bureau of Indian Education and the Department of Defense schools have also adopted it. This means that it meets extremely strict security standards. It is being used in thousands of school districts to manage the data of over 5 million students. There are 21 school districts in California currently using Infinite Campus and 14 more that will be online in the next year. Bay Area districts that have adopted or are adopting this system include Franklin-McKinley Elementary School District, Eastside UHSD, Sequoia UHSD, South San Francisco USD, Ravenswood USD, San Ramon Valley USD, San Jose USD and Fremont UHSD.

FISCAL IMPACT California school districts are allowed to “piggyback” on prices obtained by another district’s bidding process. In this particular case, Sequoia High School District went through an extensive selection and bidding process and PAUSD will utilize their pricing structure. There are no school districts receiving a better pricing structure than Sequoia and, therefore, than Palo Alto Unified School District.

The total cost of the Infinite Campus contract for the 2009-2010 start-up implementation is estimated not to exceed $182,000. The total cost of the 2010-2011 licensing, maintenance, and support is estimated not to exceed $173,000. These costs have been budgeted. As for following years, it is anticipated that ongoing maintenance costs will largely be offset by a reduction in spending with a number of vendors whose services will be replaced by Infinite Campus.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended at the Board of Education authorize PAUSD to enter into a contract with Infinite Campus in a not to exceed $355,000 for the implementation, licensing, maintenance, and support of a Student Information System for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years. 1/20/2010

Student Information System Selection Process & Decision

January 26, 2009

What is a Student Information System (SIS)?

 Tracks student data including household information, grades and discipline records.  Tracks staff information such as qualifications and experience.  Manages school scheduling.  Enables state and county reporting.

 And much more…

1 1/20/2010

Why Replace Our SIS?

 SASI, our current system, which was implemented in 1995, has been discontinued by its supplier.  Once the system is discontinued: ◦ No support for system failures or errors ◦ No updates for state reports or anything else  SASI will be unusable in the 2010-11 school year.

Selection Process

 Selection process started in 2008  Refreshed in summer 2009  Final selection in December 2009  Technical Review & Reference Checking, Dec 2009 and Jan 2010

 Selection team of approx. 35 administrators, teachers and parents  Team represented users of all major SIS functions

2 1/20/2010

Selection Criteria • Requirements met/planned (25%) • Product maturity, market penetration, ongoing development, market commitment (20%) • Review Team Scoring (20%) • Technology (20%) • Cost (15%)

Decision Infinite Campus was selected

Key differentiators • 100% browser based and no limitation on browsers used • Technical capabilities and security • Attractive hosting model • Met the greatest number of features • Gartner identified as market leader • Competitive pricing

3 1/20/2010

Infinite Campus Benefits

 Replaces multiple legacy applications with one integrated system ◦ Improves functionality ◦ Reduces data entry and eliminates duplicate data entry ◦ Eliminates data transfer from one system to another ◦ Reduced cost  Future systems can be integrated as IC functionality increases – library, asset management, HR, business  Truly can be a platform to run district operations if we desire

What will it cost? Cost ‘09-10 ‘10-11 ‘11-12 ‘12-13 Infinite Campus License & Maintenance $0 $147,800^ $147,800^ $147,800^ Infinite Campus Implementation $181,556* $25,000* $0 $0 Additional Implementation Costs $100,000** $25,000** $0 $0

Total $281,566 $197,800 $147,800 $147,800

Legacy Applications $141,786 $64,816 $51,100 $0

Note: For comparison purposes, numbers show zero enrollment growth. All apps are priced per student and costs will grow with enrollment.

^A portion of this amount is erate-able, approx. $10K reduction with erate approval. *First year includes $30K contingency. Second year estimate of $25K is a contingency. **Additional implementation costs include project management and data cleaning. 8

4 1/20/2010

Implementation Timeline

January February March April May June July August September

Preparation

Project

Planning

Implementation

Deploy

Support

Our Choices Do Nothing Infinite Campus Another Solution •SASI goes out of •Best of breed system •District starts ‘10/’11 support implemented school year without a new •District can not submit •New system ready for SIS. state reports ‘10/’11 school year •District can not submit •State funding lost •Over time, district state reports until new •District must revert to consolidates systems and system is implemented paper-based processes reduces costs •Possible loss of state •Increased costs for •District benefits from funds administration and improved data integrity •If there is a SASI failure, compliance district must revert to •Increased teacher paper-based processes workload •Since we believe we have selected the best solution, any solution selected will provide less benefit to the district

5 BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Consent 6

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

TO: Kevin Skelly, Ph.D., Superintendent

FROM: Scott J. Bowers, Ed.D., Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources

SUBJECT: Variable Term Waiver for ROP Automotive Mechanics Teacher

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Staff Recruitment and Development

BACKGROUND A variable term waiver is a document that is requested by a school district when it has difficulty finding an appropriately credentialed individual for a long term position. The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing requires a notice of intent to employ an applicant be made public.

Michael Camicia has held a Clear Designated Subjects Vocational Education Credential in Automotive Mechanics since 1997 and has been with Palo Alto Unified School District since 1999. Mr. Camicia has registered in the past for the English Learners Professional Development Program (ELPD)—the method by which ROP teachers earn their English Learner authorization. Unfortunately, the class has been cancelled several times by the Santa Clara County Office of Education due to low enrollment. He is once again enrolled in the ELPD and hopes to complete the course this year.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Board authorize the District to file a Variable Term (English Learner) Waiver for Michael Camicia.

BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Consent 7

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

TO: Dr. Kevin Skelly, Superintendent of Schools

FROM: Bob Golton, Co-CBO and Bond Program Manager

SUBJECT: Authorization to Issue Addendum No. 5 to Deems Lewis McKinley Architecture

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Budget Trends and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND On August 26, 2009, the Board of Education approved the selection of Deems Lewis McKinley Architecture (DLM) to provide design services for Gunn and Palo Alto high schools.

As a result of the approval of the group 1 projects at Palo Alto and Gunn high schools, the following augmentations to Deems Lewis McKinley’s scope of work are proposed:

1. Relocation of the seven (7) portable classrooms to provide a clear building site for the Media Arts Center, as recommended in the two year construction plan.

2. Design of fire sprinkler systems to be included in the construction documents for both Palo Alto and Gunn high schools. Design and approval by DSA of these systems will avoid potential delays and cost increases due to deferred approval of the sprinkler system after the project is bid and awarded.

3. Relocation and expansion of the Palo Alto High School central plant into the new two-story Math and History/Social Sciences classroom building. The central plant will provide chilled and heating hot water needs for the campus’s HVAC systems, and the existing central plant will be demolished.

The amount for design services, including reimbursable expenses for Palo Alto High School is $292,950 and at Gunn High School is $39,400, for a total amount of $332,350 for this addendum.

PROPOSAL It is proposed the Board of Education authorize staff to execute Addendum No. 5 with Deems Lewis McKinley Architecture in the amount of $332,350.

FISCAL IMPACT The projects affected by the above addendum are the new classroom building projects at Gunn and Palo Alto high schools, and are funded with Measure A – Strong Schools Bond funds.

Deems Lewis McKinley’s contract for the Math and History/Social Sciences classroom building and Media Arts Center at Palo Alto High School, currently approved through Addendum No. 4 in the amount of $1,690,410, will increase by $292,950 for a total contract amount of $1,983,360

Deems Lewis McKinley’s contract for the Math/English and World Languages classroom buildings at Gunn High School, currently approved through Addendum No. 4 in the amount of $1,339,100, will increase by $27,000 for a total of $1,366,100.

Deems Lewis McKinley’s contract for the New/Auxiliary Gymnasium at Gunn High School, currently approved through Addendum No. 2 in the amount of $820,628, will increase by $12,400 for a total of $833,028.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Board of Education authorize staff to execute Addendum No. 5 with DLM Architecture in the amount of $332,350.

BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Consent 8

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

TO: Kevin Skelly, Superintendent of Schools

FROM: Bob Golton, Co-CBO and Bond Program Manager

SUBJECT: Agreement Between the Palo Alto Unified School District and the City of Palo Alto Concerning the Public Use, Brokering, and Maintenance of District-Owned Athletic Fields, Tennis Courts, and Basketball Courts Jointly Used by School Students and the General Public

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Budget Trends and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND The School District and the City of Palo Alto have entered into a series of agreements regarding maintenance and use of fields, tennis courts, and basketball courts, starting in 1992. The latest multi-year agreement ended on June 30, 2009. A six month extension, to provide time for a new agreement to be put in place, was approved in June 2009. The new proposed three year agreement is attached. There are two significant changes.

First, this agreement adjusts the split of fees from 50% City/50% PAUSD to 60% City/40% PAUSD. The City reports that staff time spent on brokering fields has increased due to the growing number of youth sports groups and participants, and sports moving toward year round play as opposed to seasonal play. The City has therefore increased field use fees for both adults and youth, and has changed the Palo Alto based youth sports fee from a $5.00 per player per season fee to a per hour field use fee of $1.00 - $2.00 per hour. The PAUSD 40% share of the revenue using the new fee schedule is estimated to be greater than the 50% using the old fee schedule.

Second, over the past ten years of the agreement, the City has systematically improved irrigation systems, controls, tennis surfaces, fencing, and field-related amenities at all of the District elementary schools and middle schools, with costs for these projects being shared on a 50%/50% basis. Since the infrastructure cycle of improvements is considered complete, no new capital improvements are proposed in this agreement. The agreement does continue all regular mowing, turf and sprinkler maintenance for the sports fields, and the cleaning maintenance of the tennis courts.

PROPOSAL It is proposed the Board authorize the Superintendent or his designee to execute this agreement with the City of Palo Alto.

FISCAL IMPACT It is estimated there will be an increase of $4,800 per year in fee revenue to PAUSD.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent or his designee to execute this agreement between the Palo Alto Unified School District and the City of Palo Alto concerning the public use, brokering, and maintenance of District owned athletic fields, tennis courts, and basketball courts jointly used by school students and the general public AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY CONCERNING THE PUBLIC USE, BROKERING AND MAINTENANCE OF DISTRICT-OWNED ATHLETIC FIELDS, TENNIS COURTS AND BASKETBALL COURTS JOINTLY USED BY SCHOOL STUDENTS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC

This Agreement is entered into as of ______, 2010 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (the “CITY”) and the PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, a unified school district organized and existing under the Laws of the State of California (the “DISTRICT”) (individually, a “Party” and, collectively, the “Parties”), in reference to the following facts and circumstances:

RECITALS:

WHEREAS, Section 10900 et seq. of the California Education Code authorizes public authorities (e.g., cities and school districts) to organize, promote and conduct programs of community recreation, establish systems of playgrounds and recreation, and acquire, construct, improve, maintain and operate recreation centers within or without the territorial limits of such public authorities; and

WHEREAS, Section 10905 of the California Education Code authorizes public authorities to enter into agreements with each other for the maintenance of recreation centers; and

WHEREAS, Section 10910 of the California Education Code provides that the governing body of any school district may use or grant the use of any grounds of the school district to any other public authority for the organizing, promoting and conducting of community recreation whenever such use will not interfere with the use of those facilities for any other purpose of the public school system; and

WHEREAS, the Parties have jointly kept open for school student and general public use in Palo Alto the athletic fields, basketball courts and tennis courts at the elementary and middle schools and the tennis courts at Palo Alto and Gunn High Schools, and they desire to continue arrangements for their common use;

WHEREAS, the Parties are interested in continuing a long-term, joint funding arrangement under which the CITY will undertake the maintenance of the athletic field areas of the twelve elementary schools and the two middle schools and the eight shared-use exterior basketball court areas and the two tennis courts at Terman Park to enhance their usability by school students and the general public, and the DISTRICT will make such areas available to the general public at reasonable times when such areas are not being used exclusively for school purposes;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Provisions of this Agreement, the parties agree:

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS

The terms used in this Agreement will have the meanings set forth below, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

1.1 “Agreement” means this “AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY CONCERNING THE PUBLIC USE, BROKERING AND MAINTENANCE OF DISTRICT-OWNED ATHLETIC FIELDS, TENNIS COURTS AND BASKETBALL COURTS JOINTLY USED BY SCHOOL STUDENTS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC”.

1.2 “Board of Education” means the Board of Education of the DISTRICT.

1.3 “Business Manager” means the Chief Business Official of the DISTRICT, including any authorized representative.

1.4 “Capital Improvement” means any Improvement which has a standalone cost exceeding $25,000, or which has a useful life of, or whose useful life can be extended, at least five to seven years, or which has a useful life of at least five to seven years after it is capable of providing a new functional use.

1.5 “City Manager” means the city manager of the CITY, including any authorized representative.

1.6 “Council” means the city council of the CITY.

1.7 “Court” (collectively, the “Courts”) means any one of the tennis or basketball court areas depicted in Attachment A and Section 1.9.

1.8 “Director” means the Director of Community Services of the CITY, including any authorized representative.

1.9 “Facilities” mean the Courts and Fields, the dimensions of which for reference purposes are outlined below:

School Site Fields Courts Basketball Exhibit

Addison 1.58 acres 0 A Barron Park 2.34 acres 0 B Briones 1.25 acres 0 C Duveneck 1.80 acres 0 D El Carmelo 1.81 acres 0 E Escondido 2.44 acres 0 F Fairmeadow 2.06 acres 0 G Greendell 1.79 acres 0 H Gunn High School 0 acres 6 I Hoover 1.60 acres 0 J J.L. Stanford Middle 10.45 acres 6 K Jordan Middle 6.68 acres 5 L Nixon 3 71 acres 0 M Ohlone 1.53 acres 0 N Palo Alto High School 0 acres 7 O Palo Verde .62 acres 0 P Walter Hays 2.71 acres 0 Q Terman Park 4.00 acres 2 5 R*

*The DISTRICT has use of the two tennis and eight exterior basketball courts located at Terman Park in accordance with the joint use agreement, dated December 10, 2001. The CITY is responsible for only the maintenance of the outdoor basketball courts at Terman Park. The DISTRICT is responsible for the maintenance of the interior basketball courts and other facilities on the school grounds.

1.10 “Field” (collectively, the “Fields”) means any one of the athletic field areas referred to in Attachment A and Section 1.9.

1.11 “Improvement” means any physical addition, alteration, or betterment to the Facilities.

1.12 “Law” (collectively, the “Laws”) means any code, statute, constitution, ordinance, resolution, regulation, rule, judicial decision, administrative order, or other requirement of any municipal, county, state, federal, or other governmental agency or authority having jurisdiction over the parties or the Schools, in effect at the time of execution of the Agreement or at any time during the term hereof, including, without limitation, any regulation or order of an official entity or body.

1.13 “Provision” (collectively, the “Provisions”) means any agreement, clause, condition, covenant, qualification, recital, restriction, reservation, term, or other stipulation in this Agreement that defines or otherwise controls, establishes, or limits the performance required or permitted by any party to this Agreement. All Provisions, whether covenants or conditions, which are applicable to the DISTRICT, will be deemed to be both covenants and conditions.

1.14 “School” (collectively, the “Schools”) means any one of the following elementary, middle or high schools: Addison, Barron Park, Briones, Duveneck, El Carmelo, Escondido, Fairmeadow, Greendell, Gunn, Hoover, J.L. Stanford, Jordan, Nixon, Ohlone, Palo Alto High, Palo Verde, Walter Hays and Terman Park.

1.15 “Superintendent” means the Superintendent of schools for the DISTRICT, including any authorized representative.

SECTION 2. TERM AND TERMINATION

2.1 The term of this Agreement will be for approximately three (3) years commencing at 6:00 a.m. on January 1, 2010, and expiring at 12:00 a.m. midnight on December 31, 2012, subject to the earlier termination of this Agreement by any Party hereto upon ninety (90) days’ advance written notice. The preceding sentence notwithstanding, this Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the CITY and other Laws of the CITY and the DISTRICT, and this Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated by the Council or Board of Education for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated by the Council or Board of Education for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. The CITY or the DISTRICT will use reasonable efforts to give the other Party reasonable notice of termination in the event that funds will not be appropriated. No provision is made for the automatic extension or renewal of the term.

2.2 If the DISTRICT fails to install or construct any Improvement which is deemed reasonably necessary by the CITY to adequately perform its maintenance obligations under this Agreement, the CITY may terminate this Agreement upon ninety (90) days’ advance written notice to the DISTRICT. For the purposes hereof, the Director may give notice to the Business Manager.

SECTION 3. PERFORMANCE OF MAINTENANCE BY THE CITY

3.1 To the extent the authorized representatives of the Parties have not conferred at the commencement date of this Agreement, the authorized representatives of the Parties will meet with each other at a mutually acceptable location to identify the Facilities and discuss and coordinate the times and manner in which the orderly transition of the maintenance obligations will be put into effect. The authorized representatives shall meet regularly to review the maintenance schedule for the Facilities. They will meet not less than once a year to discuss the use and maintenance of the Facilities.

3.2 Commencing on January 1, 2010, or thereafter, as practicable, the CITY will mow, trim, fertilize, and irrigate, and perform other maintenance work of a general nature at the Fields at the frequencies and times in accordance with the field maintenance standards adopted by the CITY for its own district and neighborhood parks and public recreation areas. The obligation of the CITY to perform Field maintenance work is conditioned upon the functional condition and operation of the infrastructure of the Fields, including, without limitation, the underground water irrigation system, at the time such maintenance work is to commence. Any or all services required to maintain and renovate the Fields and irrigation systems may be performed by contractors hired and managed by the CITY.

3.3 In performing its maintenance obligations: the CITY will use its best efforts to prevent interference with the DISTRICT’s use of the Facilities during regular school hours. The CITY shall publish a maintenance schedule six months in advance of any planned maintenance activity and make that schedule known to the Business Manager for dissemination to the Schools involved. This schedule will be adhered to by the Schools and no school activities will be planned which would interfere with these maintenance activities. All maintenance activities will be performed between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on any day. The CITY will coordinate its scheduled maintenance activities with the DISTRICT’s academic calendar for each of the Schools. The Business Manager and the Director will coordinate on the behalf of the parties. Standard or routine maintenance work will be scheduled so as to be for a maximum of one day at a time; other maintenance work will be coordinated between the Parties.

3.4 In the event of an emergency, including, without limitation, earthquakes, fires, flooding, or other events of force majeure, the CITY may perform non-scheduled maintenance at any of the Facilities without prior notification to the DISTRICT. The CITY will give notice of any action it has taken in the event of an emergency within a reasonable time. In such event, the CITY will use its best efforts to provide the access to the affected Facilities for the DISTRICT.

3.5 With the exception of safety concerns, any concern of the DISTRICT about the general maintenance or use of the Facilities will be communicated to the Director by the Business Manager.

3.6 In undertaking the necessary turf and grounds maintenance renovations, if scheduled six (6) months in advance, the CITY may curtail and preempt the DISTRICT’s use of up to one-half of any Field up to four (4) times during the academic year for any single period not exceeding eight (8) consecutive weeks in duration.

SECTION 4. PERFORMANCE OF MAINTENANCE BY THE DISTRICT

4.1 Any areas of the Facilities and all other areas of the Schools, including, without limitation, the turf, grounds, landscaped areas, buildings, parking lots, fences, sidewalks, and trees, not expressly identified in the exhibits or in this Agreement as areas to be maintained by the CITY will be maintained or cause to be maintained by the DISTRICT, at its sole cost and expense, in accordance with the DISTRICT’s standards.

4.2 Notwithstanding any Provision to the contrary, the DISTRICT, at its sole cost and expense, will provide or cause to be provided special preparation and maintenance services with respect to any of the Facilities to be used in connection with special events or other similar functions staged by the DISTRICT, including, without limitation, graduation ceremonies, athletic events, tennis tournaments, and other inter-scholastic activities.

4.3 The DISTRICT, at its sole cost and expense, will continuously provide services in connection with the removal of garbage, refuse, debris, rubbish, litter and other solid waste which have accumulated at the Facilities.

4.4 At all times during the term of this Agreement, the DISTRICT will timely notify the CITY of any condition of the Facilities and all other areas of the Schools, of which it has actual or constructive knowledge, which may constitute or present a danger or threat to person or property. The tender of such timely notice shall not compromise any Provision of indemnification set forth in Section 11.

SECTION 5. PAYMENT OF COSTS OF MAINTENANCE

5.1 The allocable annual costs of maintenance and water (plus equipment costs and salary and benefits costs, as appropriate) for the Facilities are estimated by the CITY to be the following:

Year Maintenance 2009 - 10 $730,420 2010 - 11 $752,332 2011 - 12 $774,901 2013 - 14 $822,092

Costs shall be shared in the ratio of 50:50 between the CITY and the DISTRICT.

5.2 In lieu of billing and payment procedures to be adopted by the Parties under this Agreement, the Parties agree that the CITY will credit fifty percent (50%) of its actual costs incurred in performing its maintenance obligations under this Agreement against any and all monthly lease payments due and payable by the CITY under its lease agreement with the DISTRICT entitled “Lease and Covenant Not to Develop”.

SECTION 6. INSTALLATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVENENTS

6.1 In nonemergency situations, the CITY will not install or construct, or cause to be installed or constructed, any Improvement at any of the Facilities without the express written approval of the Superintendent. To the extent an Improvement which is deemed by the CITY to be reasonably necessary to adequately perform its maintenance obligations hereunder cannot be installed or constructed or cause to be installed or constructed by the DISTRICT, the CITY may undertake such installation or construction at the written request of the DISTRICT. Any Improvement installed or constructed by the CITY will be deemed the property of the DISTRICT.

6.2 The installation or construction of an Improvement in the event of an emergency may be conducted by the CITY in accordance with Section 3.4.

SECTION 7. USAGE OF FACILITIES

7.1 In attempting to maximize the use of the Facilities by school students and the general public, the Director and the Business Manager may jointly adopt and promulgate and amend written rules and regulations governing the use of the Facilities.

7.2 The DISTRICT will have use priority of the elementary and middle school fields and tennis courts between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on scheduled school days. Use priority will be extended to interscholastic activities occurring at the Facilities until the completion of those scheduled activities, even if such activities are completed after 4:00 p.m. This priority will apply Mondays through Fridays of each week from September to mid-June of each academic year and Saturdays for the duration of any regularly scheduled inter-scholastic competition, provided, however, no priority will be extended to practice sessions for such competition.

7.3 The CITY will have use priority of the elementary and middle school fields, basketball courts and tennis courts after 4:00 p.m. on scheduled school days and at all other times, including weekends, holidays and summer vacation periods. Exceptions to this use priority schedule may be agreed upon, in writing, by the Director and the Business Manager. The CITY will cooperate with the DISTRICT in any manner which will afford the DISTRICT an adequate opportunity to use the Schools for its activities, programs and other needs.

7.4 The CITY will administer public use reservations of the elementary and middle school fields, basketball courts and tennis courts in accordance with the CITY’s Field Use Policy, which will be provided to the DISTRICT. The CITY will be solely responsible for determining the parameters of the use priority system, as well as rental or user fees to be charged to members of the general public, including individuals and organized groups, for the use of the Facilities during such times as the CITY may exercise use priority over the elementary and middle school playing fields and tennis courts. Such fees will conform to the Laws governing school grounds and those which are applicable to the CITY’s property. All fees for the use of the Facilities covered by this Agreement collected by the CITY will be equally shared, and will be accounted for in a manner as may be mutually acceptable to the parties.

7.5 Any person who leases a School building of the DISTRICT will be entitled, upon submission of a written request to the CITY, to use the Facilities in order to meet any special recreational needs. Any such request may be granted by the Director provided reasonable prior written notice of such need is given and the Director reasonably determines that such use will not unreasonably interfere with scheduled public recreational activities.

7.6 The City Manager shall be the representative of the CITY for all purposes under this Agreement. The Division Manager, Recreation, of the CITY’S Community Services Department is designated as the Project Manager for the City Manager, and shall supervise the progress and implementation of Facility brokering, and shall be assisted by the designee, the Program Supervisor. The Business Manager of the DISTRICT schools shall be the representative of the DISTRICT for all purposes under this Agreement, shall be designated as the Project Director, and shall have overall responsibility for the progress and implementation of this Agreement for the DISTRICT.

7.7 The CITY shall provide the following services under this Agreement:

7.7.1 Schedule, reserve and license the DISTRICT’S Facilities located at the Schools listed in Attachment A to individuals or groups for use by adult and youth athletic groups at such times and dates when school is not in session and school activities are not taking place (“Public Use”). The CITY shall be solely responsible for the coordination and scheduling of requests for the reservation and use of the Facilities for Public Use, subject to the DISTRICT’S prior approval, during the term of this Agreement.

7.7.2 Bill and collect all user fees for each Facility in accordance with the fee schedule, attached hereto as Attachment B. The Parties agree the user groups will be assessed fees as may be established by the CITY. Such fees will conform to the Laws governing school grounds and those applicable to the CITY’s property. The CITY shall retain sixty percent (60%) of the fees generated by this surcharge to defray the cost of coordinating youth group use of the Fields.

7.7.3 Issue a completed Facility Use Permit to each user, in the form of Attachment F, prior to such use of the Facility.

7.7.4 Monitor and enforce the use of the Facilities to determine whether such uses comply with conditions of the permits. If such use of a Facility does not comply with the conditions of the particular permit or other applicable Laws, the CITY shall terminate the further use of the Facility by the user.

7.7.5 Upon request, provide the DISTRICT with one (1) copy of every permit issued for the use of the Facilities.

7.7.6 Provide the DISTRICT on or before October 1 (for the period July 1 to December 31 of the preceding calendar year and January 1 to June 30 of the current calendar year) with a financial report that accounts for the fees that the CITY has collected from the Athletic Field use under this Agreement during the preceding time period.

7.7.7 Notify the Facilities’ permit holders of the DISTRICT’S intended Facilities maintenance and improvement projects and of any Facilities closures that may become necessary to effect the construction of the projects.

7.8 The DISTRICT shall provide the following services under this Agreement:

7.8.1 Make the Facilities available to the CITY as set forth above for the purposes of scheduling, reservations and usage to private individuals or groups for Public Use.

7.8.2 All fees that the DISTRICT will receive under this Agreement will be used by the DISTRICT only for the benefit or betterment of DISTRICT athletic facilities, including, but not limited to, the maintenance, repairs or improvements of the Facilities.

7.9 The CITY shall not be responsible or liable for any maintenance, repairs, or improvements of the Fields which are required to be performed, conducted, or constructed by the DISTRICT, and the DISTRICT shall not be responsible or liable for any maintenance, repairs, or improvements of the Fields which are required to be performed, conducted or constructed by CITY.

SECTION 8. LAWS TO BE OBSERVED

8.1 The Parties shall cooperate in procuring all permits and licenses, paying all charges and fees, and giving all notices which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the services to be performed under this Agreement.

SECTION 9. FEES

9.1 In consideration of its use of the Facilities under this Agreement, the CITY will pay the DISTRICT forty percent (40%) of all fees that the CITY collects from the Facilities’ permit holders. The CITY shall make payments related to the Facilities usage to the DISTRICT on February 1 (for the period July 1 to December 31 of the preceding calendar year) of each year during the term of the Agreement. This obligation shall survive the expiration of this Agreement.

SECTION 10. ASSIGNMENT; SUBCONTRACTORS; EMPLOYEES

10.1 The Parties shall give their personal attention to the faithful performance of this Agreement and shall not assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this Agreement or any right, title or interest in or to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the other Party, and then only subject to such terms and conditions as the other Party may require. The consent to one assignment shall not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment without such approval shall be void and, at the option of the other Party, shall terminate this Agreement and any license or privilege granted herein. This Agreement and any interest herein shall not be assignable by operation of law without the prior written consent of the other Party.

10.2 The DISTRICT shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of the DISTRICT hereunder. The CITY shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of the CITY hereunder.

SECTION 11. INDEMNITY

11.1 The CITY shall protect, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the DISTRICT, its employees, agents, and Board members from and against any demands, claims, liability or expense on account of suits, verdicts, judgments, costs or claims of any nature or kind arising out of, or in any way connected with, the CITY’s performance or nonperformance under this Agreement, including the CITY’s operations on, possession, use, management, alteration or control of the DISTRICT’s property under this Agreement except for any claims or liability, or portions thereof, arising from the concurrent or sole negligence or intentional malfeasance of the DISTRICT, its directors, officers, employees or agents.

11.2 The DISTRICT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the CITY from and against any demands, claims, liability or expenses on account of suits, verdicts, judgments, costs or claims of any nature or kind arising out of, or in any way connected with, the DISTRICT’s performance or nonperformance under this Agreement, including the DISTRICT’s operations, possession, use, management, maintenance, improvement, renovation, repair, alteration or control of the DISTRICT’s property, including the Facilities, under this Agreement, except for any claims or liability, or portions thereof, arising from the concurrent or sole negligence or intentional malfeasance of the CITY, its directors, officers, employees or agents.

SECTION 12. INSURANCE

12.1 The DISTRICT, at its sole cost and expense, will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect, during the term of this Agreement, commercial general liability insurance coverage described in Attachment C, in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000), insuring the Parties, and their officers, employees, and agents, and each of them, with respect to the DISTRICT’s participation and the services performed by the DISTRICT under this Agreement. Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, a certificate of insurance will be filed with the CITY’s risk manager, and will contain the endorsements which state that the DISTRICT will insure the Parties, and each of them, for any claims or liability arising from the DISTRICT’s participation and services performed hereunder, and will not be canceled by the insurer except after the filing with the CITY’s City Clerk thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation or alteration, and that the CITY is named as an additional insured under such policies required above or concerning the DISTRICT’s performance or lack of performance under this Agreement.

12.2 Certificates of the DISTRICT’s insurance, required by Section 12.1 hereof, shall be filed with the CITY, to the attention of the CITY’s Risk Manager, concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates shall be subject to the approval of the CITY’s Risk Manager and shall contain endorsements stating that said insurance will cover the DISTRICT and the CITY for any claims or liability arising from the DISTRICT’s participation, activities, and services performed under the Provisions. Current certificates of such insurance shall be kept on file at all times during the term of this Agreement with the City Clerk.

12.3 The CITY, at its sole cost and expense, will self-insure for general liability insurance coverage described in Attachment D, in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000), insuring the Parties, and their officers, employees, and agents, and each of them, with respect to the CITY’s participation and the services performed by the CITY under this Agreement. A certificate of insurance will be filed with the DISTRICT’s risk manager, and will contain the endorsements which state that the CITY will insure the Parties, and each of them, for any claims or liability arising from the CITY’s participation and services performed hereunder, and will not be canceled by the insurer except after the filing with the Superintendent thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation or alteration, and that the DISTRICT is named as an additional insured under the CITY’s self-insurance program.

12.4 The CITY shall provide the DISTRICT with written proof of the CITY’s self- insurance program, required by Section 12.3 hereof, concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. Proof of the self-insurance program shall be subject to approval by the DISTRICT’s Risk Manager and shall contain language stating that said insurance will cover the CITY and the DISTRICT for any claims or liability arising from the CITY’s participation, activities and services performed under the Provisions and will not be cancelled or altered by the CITY except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to the DISTRICT of such cancellation or alterations. The language shall also state that the DISTRICT is named as an additional insured under the CITY’s self- insurance program under Section 13.3 of this Agreement.

SECTION 13. WAIVERS

13.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any terms, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any provision, ordinance, or law shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, ordinance, or law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other terms, covenant, condition, ordinance, or law.

SECTION 14. NOTICES

14.1 All notices, demands, requests, consents, approvals, or other communications required to be given will be in writing and may be delivered personally, or sent by the United States mail, postage prepaid by certified mail, or by private express delivery service, or by facsimile transmission, to the addresses set forth below or to any other address as may be noticed by a party:

To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301

To DISTRICT: Superintendent Palo Alto Unified School District 25 Churchill Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306

SECTION 15. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

15.1 Time is of the essence. For the purposes of this Agreement, all times of the day are determined according to Pacific Time.

15.2 No party will be deemed in default on account of any delay or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement, where the delay or failure is the direct result of an event of force majeure. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “force majeure” will mean an event which is not within the reasonable control of a party claiming the existence of such event.

15.3 No Party will discriminate in the employment of persons engaged in the performance of this Agreement on account of race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of that person. The DISTRICT agrees to comply with the requirements of Chapter 2.30 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment, including the completion and submission to the CITY of the Certification of Nondiscrimination, as described in Attachment E.

15.4 Any disputes regarding this Agreement will be resolved according to the Laws of the State of California. Any legal proceeding will be instituted in the courts of the State of California and County of Santa Clara, irrespective of any claim of diversity of citizenship or other possible jurisdictional conditions.

15.5 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement or arising out of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees expended in connection with such an action from the other party.

15.6 All attachments referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, exhibits, and schedules which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be part of this Agreement.

15.7 This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning its subject matter, and there are no other oral or written agreements between the parties not incorporated in this Agreement.

15.8 This Agreement will not be construed as nor deemed to be an agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties, and no third party or parties will have any right of action herein for any cause whatever. The terms, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement shall apply to, and shall bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assigns and subcontractors of each Party.

15.9 This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument signed by both parties. The City Manager is duly authorized to negotiate and execute any amendment to this Agreement.

15.10 Any agreement, covenant, condition, clause, qualification, term, or other stipulation in this Agreement will define or otherwise control, establish, or limit the performance required of or permitted by any party. All provisions of this Agreement, whether covenants or conditions, will be deemed both covenants and conditions.

15.11 This Agreement confers no legal or equitable rights until it is approved by the DISTRICTs Board of Trustees at a lawfully conducted public meeting.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto by their duly authorized representatives have duly executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.

APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF PALO ALTO

______Senior Asst. City Attorney Assistant City Manager

APPROVED: PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ______Director of Administrative Services ______President, Board of Education ______Director of Community Services APPROVED:

______Chief Business Official

Attachments:

ATTACHMENT A: List of District’s Athletic Fields, Basketball Courts and Tennis Courts ATTACHMENT B: Fee Schedule and Program ATTACHMENT C: District’s Insurance Coverage ATTACHMENT D: City’s Insurance Coverage ATTACHMENT E: Certificate of Non-discrimination ATTACHMENT F: Facility Use Permit form

ATTACHMENT A

List of District’s Athletic Fields, Basketball Courts and Tennis Courts

Athletic Fields

Addison School - 650 Addison Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Barron Park School - 800 Barron Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Briones School - 4100 Orme Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Duveneck School - 705 Alester Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303 El Carmelo School - 3024 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Escondido School - 890 Escondido, Stanford, CA 94305 Fairmeadow School - 500 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Greendell School - 4120 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Walter Hays School - 1525 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Hoover School – 445 East Charleston, Palo Alto, CA 94303 J.L. Stanford Middle School - 480 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Jordan Middle School - 750 North California, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Nixon School - 1711 Stanford Avenue, Stanford, CA 94305 Ohlone School - 950 Amarillo Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Palo Verde School - 3450 Louis Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Terman Middle School - 655 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306

Basketball Courts

Terman Middle School – 655 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306

Tennis Courts

J. L. Stanford Middle school – 480 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Jordan Middle School – 750 North California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Terman Middle School (Terman Park) - 655 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Gunn High School – 780 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Palo Alto High School – 50 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301

ATTACHMENT B

Fee Schedule and Program

Athletic Field Rentals 2010-2011** Baseball Fields $7.50 - 75.00/hr* Soccer Fields $7.50 - 75.00/hr* Softball Fields $7.50 - 75.00/hr* Lights $20.00/use

Tennis Court Rentals Tennis Tournament Court Use Fee $3.00/hr/court Non-Profit $5.00/hr/court Resident $7.00/hr/court Nonresident

* Athletic fields fees will be reduced by 50% for nonprofit users. Proof of nonprofit status will be required for fee reduction. However, there shall be no fee reduction if any fee or donation is required by the nonprofit organization permit holder in connection with the use of the permitted field or tennis court. ** Rates subject to increase as long as they fall within the Municipal Fee Schedule Range.

Facilities covered by these fees include: City Sites Palo Alto Unified School District Sites City Parks Terman Park All Elementary Schools -Open or Closed Jordan Middle School J.L. Stanford Middle School

ATTACHMENT C

District’s Insurance Coverage

ATTACHMENT D

City’s Insurance Coverage ATTACHMENT E Certificate of Nondiscrimination

As suppliers of goods or services to the City of Palo Alto, the firm and individuals listed below certify that they do not discriminate in employment of any person because of race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person; that they are in compliance with all Federal, State and local directives and executive orders regarding nondiscrimination in employment.

1. If Proposer is INDIVIDUAL, sign here:

Date:______

______Proposer’s Signature

______Proposer’s typed name and title

2. If Proposer is PARTNERSHIP or JOINT VENTURE, at least (2) Partners or each of the Joint Venturers shall sign here:

______Partnership or Joint Venture Name (type or print)

Date:______Member of the Partnership or Joint Venture signature

3. If Proposer is a CORPORATION or OTHER ENTITY, the duly authorized officer(s) shall sign as follows:

The undersigned certify that they are respectively:

______and ______

Of the corporation or other entity named below; that they are designated to sign the Form by resolution (attach a certified copy, with corporate seal, if applicable, notarized as to its authenticity or Secretary’s certificate of authorization) for and on behalf of the below named CORPORATION or OTHER ENTITY, and that they are authorized to execute same for and on behalf of said CORPORATION or OTHER ENTITY.

______Corporation or Other Entity Name (type or print)

By:______Date: ______

Title:______ATTACHMENT F Facility Use Permit Form

BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment Consent 9

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

Complete tape recordings of most Board Meetings are available at 25 Churchill Avenue. Meetings are also available on demand at http://www.communitymediacenter.net/watch/pausd_webcast/PAUSDondemand.html

MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 2010 Call to Order The Board of Education of Palo Alto Unified School District held a Special Session Meeting in the Room A at 25 Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Barbara Klausner, President, called the meeting to order at 12:30 p.m.

Members present: Ms. Barbara Klausner, President Ms. Melissa Baten Caswell, Vice President Ms. Barb Mitchell Mr. Dana Tom Ms. Camille Townsend

Staff present: Dr. Kevin Skelly, Superintendent Dr. Linda Common, Assistant Superintendent Dr. Burton Cohen, Director Kathleen Ruegsegger, Administrative Assistant

STUDY SESSION Skelly outlined the plan for the study session. Cohen addressed the goals for the Board Policy Review Committee (BPRC). Adoption of Legally Aligned District Policies The group began by working through the list of suggested changes to policies that were minor (Attachment A).

Mitchell asked about providing redlined copies for the public. Ruegsegger will put those policies that had added language online before the evening meeting. Mitchell asked for clarity on which staff members are reviewing policies and administrative regulations. Staff members will have access online. Cohen noted all staff is part of the process for reviewing and issues may come up through implementation. Skelly indicated reviewers will initial or indicate their review.

Townsend asked for clarification on the 2/3 and 4/5 concern in the board by laws. It was determined the policy asking for a 4/5 vote of the board was required only for extending meetings. Townsend expressed concern about moving from old to new. Ruegsegger noted that policies to be reviewed by the BPRC are online in a separate folder.

Further discussion among board members addressed legal compliance and process for who tackles policies requiring change. It was generally agreed that requests can come from staff, the community, the board, and BPRC. Not all need go through BPRC. Community input occurs throughout the process; agendas for board meetings and BPRC must be posted.

Baten Caswell asked about legal review. Skelly noted there will be legal review for any policy that is changed prior to board approval. She requested policies with historical dates have language reflect it was prior work. Baten Caswell asked about report cards at the elementary level. Ruegsegger indicated the policy can reflect the district exceeds the K-3 requirement.

Tom addressed the proposed tree policy, which has not been reviewed by the board. Ruegsegger indicated it would not be up for adoption by the board at this time.

Baten Caswell asked about state graduation requirements. Ruegsegger noted the policy now reflects only PAUSD graduation requirements, which are greater than those of the state. Skelly noted should requirements be reduced, policy will have to change and cannot be less than what the state requires.

Mitchell noted the communication policy indicates “shall” in sections for what the superintendent will do. It was agreed to change the language to “may” to reflect what PAUSD is doing.

Board members discussed the civics policy and environmental education policy, asking that “shall” be changed to “may” to reflect practice.

Tom indicated his concern about adopting policies that unintentionally encumber the district further. Townsend concerned about losing the inclusion of the community in the education of its children. Tom would like language in the motion to indicate the board’s intention with this wholesale adoption. Ruegsegger will write a motion and email it to the board before the evening meeting for their consideration.

Skelly introduced the next portion of the meeting, Attachment B, policies to go to the BPRC for review. Looking to give Approved: Special Session Meeting January 12, 2010 Page 1 MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 2010 Townsend and Tom additional feedback for this committee’s work. Baten Caswell noted the committee will be doing the footwork for the board and that is reflected in Attachment C, charge to the BPRC. Supporting documentation will be important part of these meetings. Skelly noted not all policies will need to go through the BPRC process.

Board members discussed what policies the BPRC should review; putting proposed policies through legal review; not having every suggestion go through the committee, slowing the process; getting the right charge to the committee, letting the committee define its role; commented the short term goal is to clean up board policies; noted some policies on attachment can be handled by staff without the BPRC. Townsend and Tom will meet with Cohen to do a triage on the recommended policies. Tom noted he foresees a time when the work of the BPRC will be on an as needed basis.

Klausner suggested using the triage process to determine which policies have a major impact on school operations or community. Tom noted his first goal is to go through the entire list. Baten Caswell suggested policies needing staff review be pulled before going to the committee.

Skelly noted the new law regarding choice for families with children in the lowest performing schools. Board members agreed current policy (5111.2 and 5116) and regulation will remain in place, with the two policies 5116.1 and 5117 being deleted from the adoption. Skelly indicated staff will work on this issue to ensure the policies are legal and in place before implementation of the law in April 2010. He noted this will be a challenge for all districts.

Public Comment A community member expressed concern about policies addressing bullying and cyberbullying.

Mitchell asked about administrative regulations and which would be in place with the adoption of the new policies. She suggested using current administrative regulations until the new ones are reviewed by staff. Skelly will work with council to determine best method for having staff review the administrative regulations.

Staff will work to load policies and to propose a motion for the evening meeting.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 2.47 p.m.

______Secretary to the Board

Approved: Special Session Meeting January 12, 2010 Page 2 BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment Consent 9

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 2010 Call to Order The Board of Education of Palo Alto Unified School District held a Regular Meeting in the Board Room at 25 Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Barbara Klausner, President, called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

Members present: Ms. Barbara Klausner, President Ms. Melissa Baten Caswell, Vice President Ms. Barb Mitchell Mr. Dana Tom Ms. Camille Townsend Mr. Steve Zhou, Student Board Rep, Gunn Mr. Jason Willick, Student Board Rep, Paly

Staff present: Dr. Kevin Skelly, Superintendent Dr. Linda Common, Assistant Superintendent Mrs. Ginni Davis, Assistant Superintendent Dr. Scott Bowers, Assistant Superintendent Dr. Robert Golton, Co Chief Business Official Mrs. Cathy Mak, Co Chief Business Official (absent) Dr. Burton Cohen, Director

Approval of Agenda Order The Board met in open session at 6:34 p.m. Klausner announced the board took no reportable action in closed session.

MOTION: It was moved by Mitchell; seconded by Tom; and motion carried 5-0 to approve the agenda order. Townsend pointed out that students would be attending for one of the construction items and she would like to move the item when they arrived.

Staff and Student Successes Skelly noted recent recognitions for staff members Elinor Slack, Ann Dunkin, and Bob Golton.

Student Board Representatives Zhou of Paly spoke about upcoming finals week and the stress relievers used in the current week; looking into a spring fling this year; big basketball game next week.

Willick noted the winter formal was canceled; planning for a dedication for teacher Arlene Camm in the library; looking at vehicles for input to ASB from students.

Superintendent Report Skelly spoke about the assignment free winter break; Bowers will conduct a survey to test feelings for the outcome of the break; a budget update was sent to staff based on the first interim report; district is currently not pursuing the Race to the Top MOU; following the issue of open enrollment legislation and its financial impact.

Consent Calendar MOTION: It was moved by Mitchell, seconded by Tom, and motion carried 5-0 to approve the consent calendar which included certificated and classified personnel actions; minutes of December 8 and 15, 2009; and the Uniform Complaint Quarterly Report.

Public Hearing Klausner opened the public hearing. Parcel Tax Resolution #2009-10.08 Roberta Stone spoke about the significant burden on low income residents of this proposal. The city works to include affordable housing, but she felt these same people cannot afford this tax. She asked for an exemption beyond senior citizens.

Klausner closed the public hearing.

Action Skelly noted this item has been discussed at other meetings and turned it over to Golton. Golton noted revisions, including Parcel Tax Resolution 2009-10.08 a new election date of May 4, 2010, instead of April 2010. He noted government code provides for two exemptions; seniors over 65 and those who qualify under SSI disabilities. Skelly noted finding the balance between the poor economy and the needs of the district is difficult, but polling data found this was the best way to structure the proposal for a vote. Golton responded about exemptions being annual rather than for the term of the tax explaining the district would not know if the Approved: Regular Meeting January 12, 2010 Page 1 MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 2010 person with the exemption had moved. He further explained that should someone forget to file, exemptions could be filed with the county or a refund could be issued by the district. Townsend pointed out the language in the recommendation is incorrect. Golton explained the miscommunication, and the recommendation is for action to pass the resolution to place a measure on the May 4, 2010, ballot.

Public Comment Triona Gogarty, president of the teachers’ union, noted PAEA endorsed the measure and what enhancements the parcel tax have added to the district’s programs. She pointed to the state take backs and growing enrollment that is stretching even current funding.

Tracy Stevens commented she was one of three co-chairs for the campaign and noted her background. She is supporting the tax because it is the right thing to do for education. She felt it would unite the community and will provide a predictable source of income.

Al Yuen also is a co-chair and spoke about his background. He felt a need to give back to the community. The campaign will include all the latest high tech communication tools like Twitter and a web site. supportpaloaltoschools2010.org

Anna Thayer is the third co-chair. She noted her background and commented this is a critical campaign. The community is ready to support this tax, the children, and the legacy of the city. She pointed out this is an all mail-in ballot. She is looking forward to working on the campaign.

Board member comments included appreciation for the work of staff and the co-chairs; noted the ballot language is 75 words, but there are hundreds of words in the resolution that are part of the proposal; asked the community to extend the support it had given for nine years while the district continues to reduce costs; noted areas where the funds were spent last year, which is the equivalent of about 98 teachers; noted those who move to Palo Alto list schools as the single most important reason; noted it is not just those with children who support the schools; state funds are dwindling; property tax growth is dwindling; there was currently a soft freeze on hiring; looking forward to supporting the measure; noted people who move here for their children, often stay when the children leave because of the type of community it is; noted growing enrollment is not supported with additional funds; noted costs are rising; current tax is not longer covering what was promised due to increased costs and decreased property taxes; thanked the co-chairs for volunteering and their enthusiasm; read parts of the parcel tax language; noted 100% of the funds go into the schools; the drive in Palo Alto on behalf of children is unique; thanked the co-chairs for the hundreds of hours this effort will take. Zhou noted he also moved with his family for the schools. Willick noted he too moved with his family for the schools; honored the community will put this kind of effort into education. Additional Board member comments included the research done for other exemptions and the two-thirds vote required for passage.

MOTION: It was moved by Mitchell, seconded by Tom, and motion carried 5-0 to approve Resolution 2009-10.08 proposing renewal and extension of the District’s expiring parcel tax and establishing specification of the election order for the May 4, 2010, ballot.

Information Golton explained the COLA is -.38% - resulting in a loss of $24 per student. $1.5 billion cut targeted to district Report on Governor’s Proposed administration resulting in the loss of $201 per student. Assumes $6.9 billion in federal funds and triggers automatic major Budget cuts in health/social services if these are not realized. K-12 is at serious risk if the $6.9 billion is not realized. Federal and state code changes proposed to certificated layoffs, seniority, and dismissal. Continues to use very doubtful revenue and expenditure tricks. The budget will be adopted either on time or late.

Action MOTION: It was moved by Tom, seconded by Klausner, and motion carried 5-0, based on the Board’s review of the Student Discipline Finding of Fact and recommendations submitted regarding Student Discipline Case 04-0910, to ratify the recommendation for stipulated suspended expulsion through and including the second semester of the 2009-10 school year.

Bond and Facility Items Golton noted teachers; Jacquie McEvoy, principal; DLM staff; and others were in attendance. Erwin Lee reviewed Discussion presentations for Paly covering the media arts building and the math and social sciences building and then reviewed next Approval of Schematic Design for steps. Group 1 Projects at Palo Alto High School Board members asked clarifying questions about the landscaping and how tree removals will be mitigated

McEvoy introduced the staff, parents, and students present and their enthusiasm for this project.

Board members comments included the refinement work to incorporate the feel of Paly; applauded the collaboration and noted appreciation for the work and the 3D renderings; noted the communication has improved in reaching the community; clarified the landscaping plan for the trees; commented on the balance in the schematics between historical and new design; clarified where the overhangs will be placed for protection from rain; commented on the Embarcadero gateway; clarified how it works with the theater; clarified when the Board will see additional plans as the project continues; asked about having seating under cover; and clarified that a landscape plan will be brought to the Board.

Approved: Regular Meeting January 12, 2010 Page 2 MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 2010 Teachers commented on their priorities being met for white space and lighting, private office space, a shower, movable walls, classroom flexibility, interview rooms, bathrooms, and appreciated that staff had been included in the process, noting the design is reflective of the core values of the staff.

Board members thanked the community for providing the funding through a bond to accomplish this modernization of structures for student learning.

This will return as an action item at the next meeting.

Open Forum Nabeel Sami spoke about portables noting 18:2 vote for the two year plan by ASB. He addressed the memorial garden being moved next to the tower building; new areas will be found for students to gather; do not want portables to be in the parkng lot; prefer the central campus approach.

George Brown commented that moving the portables for two years and keeping the Paly community for two years will work out well. He supported moving portables into the quad.

William D. Ross spoke about recent suspensions and the approach of staff regarding the Paly egg wars and the impact of this discipline in the university application process. He asked for expungement of student records. He asked the Board to consider doing this before there is legal action against the district.

Action Golton reviewed the history of this item, including other meetings and discussions. Skelly noted comments from the Authorization to Bid the Site Work community have been received that do not agree with this proposal, but he noted there has been a process and staff still and Relocation of Modulars strongly recommends action this evening. Building to Accommodate Construction at Palo Alto High Paul Kandell, teacher, addressed the process and noted there was broad support for the shorter construction time line. School Kara Rosenberg, adult education principal, appreciated the added input from students and the community. It was important that the core campus be maintained. The memorial garden will be mitigated, as will meeting spaces for students.

Board member comments included this was the best of the imperfect choices; thorough job of listening; noted access to the new buildings in this manner brings them on line three years sooner; convinced the committee looked for the best alternative; looked for reasonable alternatives for students to gather; felt PTA was not included early enough; can’t notify stakeholders early enough; noted everyone wanted the buildings built as quickly as possible; and asked about using student murals or planters to make the space inviting;

MOTION: It was moved by Tom, seconded by Mitchell, and motion carried 5-0 to authorize staff to bid the site work and relocation of modular buildings at Palo Alto High School.

Discussion Erwin Lee presented information for the Gymnasium, Math and English building, and World Languages building. Approval of Schematic Design for Group 1 Projects at Gunn Noreen Likins, principal, introduced staff members and parents present. Likins noted how excited staff is about the new facilities and noted DLM has been very responsive.

Board members comments included admiration for the work of DLM; thanked the Gunn team for staying late; thanked everyone for moving the project forward; clarified issues of security from theft; appreciate encompassing the campus feel; clarified where security systems are in place; clarified how potential flooding would be mitigated; clarified there is no air conditioning in the gymnasiums; clarified how natural daylight will be controlled; clarified whether the movable walls would have acoustic technology; clarified which buildings would have air conditioning, old and new; clarified seating in the gymnasium would be 1,900; and clarified the usage of large covered spaces.

Staff members commented on having foreign language classrooms centrally located; flexibility helps address the future methods of learning; office space will provide privacy for discussion with students; able to plan for the future; facilities will allow for rainy day activities; and the new weight room will be a real room. Skelly noted that the lack of tennis courts while construction occurs was being addressed. It was noted all the campus changes are welcome and exciting. The collaboration and collegiality has been exciting and productive. Staff thanked the community for supporting these projects.

Board member comments included appreciation for the vision that has been applied to these buildings.

MOTION: It was moved by Townsend, seconded by Tom, and motion carried 5-0 to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m.

Zhou also expressed excitement about these projects and noted student input had been well received and used. He asked about the muddy areas near the amphitheater and how that can be addressed. Staff noted much is caused by over watering; concrete paving will also be added as an access point.

Board member comments included asking about security for the media building at Paly. Approved: Regular Meeting January 12, 2010 Page 3 MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 2010

Action Klausner noted there was a study session earlier in the day. Skelly referred to the discussion at the study session noting Adoption of Legally Aligned Board updates that were accomplished after that discussion. The current enrollment policies will remain in place; the tree policy Policies will go back to staff. He noted existing ARs will remain in place for the time being. Skelly was very pleased with the work accomplished in the study session. He thanked the Board, Cohen, and Ruegsegger for their work.

Ruegsegger and Skelly responded to questions regarding quick fixes noted in attachment A.

Board member comments included acknowledgement of how many changes are being made and a preference for the motion includes that caveat; noted it is to align the policies legally; this was to be an ongoing process moving from this point.

MOTION: It was moved by Tom, seconded by Mitchell, and motion carried 5-0, with the understanding that it is not the Board’s intention to commit the district to new discretionary policies nor is it the Board’s intention to omit past philosophy and practices that embraces inclusion of and communication with the community, to adopt the legally aligned Board policies, including changes as presented in Attachment A. This adoption excludes: BP 7150.1, Tree Policy; BP 5116.1, Intradistrict Open Enrollment; and BP 5117, Interdistrict Attendance. Policies currently in place, BP 5111.2 (reassigned as BP 5111.21) Non-Resident Attendance, and BP 5116 (reassigned as BP 5116.2), Enrollment Provisions, and their associated administrative regulations are to remain in place until revised based on recent legislation.

MOTION: It was moved by Tom, seconded by Klausner, and motion carried to extend the meeting to 10:40 p.m.

MOTION: It was moved by Tom, seconded by Mitchell, and motion carried to approve changes to Board Policies 5030, 6146.1, 3270, 6174, 4112.41 et al, 3550, 4127 et al, 5121, and 1100 as noted in Attachment A.

It was noted Townsend would chair and Tom is also a Board representative to the Board Policy Review Committee. They will work with Cohen to do assess policies set for review as listed on Attachment B.

MOTION: It was moved by Tom, seconded by Townsend, and motion carried to extend the meeting to 10:50 p.m.

Discussion Golton explained the CHPS requirements as adopted by the Board. Tom Hodges, O’Connor, explained commissioning Authorization to Enter into Master provides costs benefits to the district; only loyalty is to get the project right; which ensures sustainability. Agreements for Commissioning Agent Services with Enovity and Board member comments included clarification of contracted amounts and clarified whether there would be a cost benefit in Test Marc this investment.

This item will return on the consent calendar on the next agenda.

Board Members’ Reports Townsend asked that agenda items that will clearly have community input be placed early on the agenda during meetings for agenda setting.

Caswell noted the TAG committee has extended its work to December 2010. She is the current representative and will remain in this seat in order to complete the work.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.

______Secretary to the Board

Approved: Regular Meeting January 12, 2010 Page 4 BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment Consent 9

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2010 Call to Order The Board of Education of Palo Alto Unified School District held a Special Session Meeting in the Room A at 25 Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Barbara Klausner, President, called the meeting to order at 12:32 p.m.

Members present: Ms. Barbara Klausner President Ms. Melissa Baten Caswell, Vice President Ms. Barb Mitchell Mr. Dana Tom Ms. Camille Townsend

Staff present: Dr. Kevin Skelly, Superintendent Dr. Linda Common, Assistant Superintendent Dr. Burton Cohen, Director Ms. Ginni Davis, Assistant Superintendent Noreen Likins, Principal Jacquie McEvoy, Principal

Discussion Klausner thanked staff for taking time for this study session and asked the principals to thank their staffs for their work. She Review of High School Level explained the WASC self study process, who participated, and the amount of time it took. Single Plans for Student Achievement Common explained each school would take about 20 minutes to cover highlights of their reports, starting with Paly. Reports would be followed by Board member questions.

McEvoy explained how goals were developed and with whom they worked to develop them. She noted the three defined goals. (1) Curriculum alignment horizontally and vertically, through each grade level, across the grade levels, and with Gunn. (2) College readiness, using a-g requirements and course content, which includes character and citizenship. (3) Providing support for all students, both academically and socially/emotionally.

For goal one, work was being done with each department and McEvoy explained what some of that work looked like. This included aligning assessments and instructional strategies. For goal two, staff was using Naviance, an online program that helps students preparing for college, which also provides data to the high schools. Also looking at electronic transcripts. McEvoy explained how each grade level is preparing during the school day to take the SAT. Part of their work was on reducing truancy. The bell schedule has been part of the conversation all year. For goal three, AVID, an English Language Teacher on Special Assignment, and methods of communication with parents are all areas being addressed. It’s been a very collaborative two years.

Likins provided a progress report to Board members. She addressed the professional learning communities for staff. Teams work across departments, which are led by teachers. The plan does cover through 2015. Working on common vision, common purpose. Student social emotional support component has been a big focus this year. AVID has seven sections and provides a great service to students. College pathway work began last year; adjustments were made this year. College for Every Student (CFES) was begun this year.

Project Cornerstone has provided training and is helping staff and students. Staff will spend some time on identifying students who are not connected in some way with staff and the school. Likins mentioned the support of PTSA has maximized the efforts for student support. She addressed the work of the counseling department. Likins spoke about curriculum and the work of staff, students, and support from PAPiE. Gunn is looking at an International Baccalaureate program.

Mitchell commented on the level of work being accomplished by the principals and their schools, noting how challenging the times are. Mitchell asked about science and whether the schools are headed in different directions. Likins commented on the decision to put freshman into college level lab in biology at Gunn through to chemistry and physics. McEvoy noted their concern is whether to lane students. Both schools offer AP courses. McEvoy spoke about the powerful conversations between the two schools – steering committees, break out days, curricular mapping, and comparing assessments. Mitchell asked about increasing enrollment and the participation levels of four years of science. McEvoy noted they are not aligned on pre-requisites; not sure that is fair to students. The goal is to encourage four years of science. Wide open field in Approved: Special Session Meeting January 26, 2010 Page 1 MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2010 college. High level participation at Gunn and Paly. Bill Garrison offered to find this data.

Townsend commented on the tasks being undertaken at these large high schools. Appreciated the efforts to maintain connections with students. Noted the work to create teacher leaders. Common explained what is being done at the schools to identify professional development needs. Townsend asked about guidance and outreach. Likins confirmed both high schools use Naviance. Likins noted the college guide has not been compiled for two years, but Naviance does provide all the data. Townsend asked about evaluating college rankings. Likins noted the focus on top tier schools is not always healthy; not all students will fit in at those schools and the number of students applying means not everyone can get in. They encourage students to apply, but also to be able to accept going to other universities. McEvoy noted there are groups of students who try to go to school together. Klausner asked about course offerings preparing students for going to universities. Likins said overall both schools provide what is needed.

Tom appreciated the information provided in the reports. He complimented each school on particular areas such as homework and social/emotional support, and collaboration. He asked for clarification of an IB program. Likins explained it can be run as a school within a school and that IB courses do not eliminate AP courses. Baten Caswell asked what it would look like and whether it would be a pilot that Paly could look at. McEvoy noted it takes a core group of teachers willing to move the program forward.

Baten Caswell echoed other board member comments on the work accomplished. She asked what their most urgent endeavors were. McEvoy noted collaboration time is important for teachers. Likins agreed time is critical.

Klausner agreed with other general board comments. She asked about scheduling at each school and what it means at all levels. McEvoy noted they have the earliest start time. She didn’t believe students would get more sleep, but they would be able to use the morning time differently, even if it’s 20 minutes. McEvoy explained what a four-day block would look like, noting it’s a different teaching strategy. Likins explained their rotating block schedule. Tom noted studies indicated that a shift to a later start time resulted in most of the time going into additional sleep for students rather than a later bedtime. Townsend asked about work schedules. Likins noted neighboring elementary or middle school start times are an issue for traffic flow. Klausner asked about the number of classes students are taking. Likins noted most students are six or more. McEvoy talked about sporting events and scheduling.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 2:31 p.m.

______Secretary to the Board

Approved: Special Session Meeting January 26, 2010 Page 2 BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment Consent 9

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2010 Call to Order The Board of Education of Palo Alto Unified School District held a Regular Meeting in the Board Room at 25 Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Barbara Klausner, President, called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

Approval of Closed Session The Board adjourned to closed session pursuant to Government Code 54957.6 for Conference with Labor Negotiator, Dr. Scott Bowers, regarding PAEA, CSEA, and pursuant to Government Code 54957 for Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release.

Approval of Agenda Order The Board met in open session at 6:33 p.m. Klausner announced the board took no reportable action in closed session.

MOTION: It was moved by Mitchell; seconded by Baten Caswell; and motion carried 5-0 to approve the agenda order.

Staff and Student Successes Skelly noted recent recognitions for Gunn High School band students and for Kara Rosenberg who received her doctorate. He spoke of Bob Golton’s recognition by Canopy, a Palo Alto group concerned with the care of the community’s trees.

Student Board Representatives Zhou commented on final’s week and the success of the donut feed, they had a Martin Luther King assembly; and the students are discussing the planned visit by Westboro Baptist Church and their negative messages.

Willick also spoke of Westboro. He commented on plans for a dance, a new intramural sports league starting during lunch, black history month, and he also spoke about finals week.

Superintendent Report Skelly spoke about the recent suicide of a former student. He applauded the work of Track Watch. The district is continuing work about signs of and erasing the stigma of mental illness. He noted high schools presented their SPSA reports earlier that day to the Board. Skelly is proud of students who are fundraising for Haiti. He spoke of recent retirements and Dr. McEvoy’s resignation at the end of the year. He noted that Barron Park Principal Cathy Howard is out with health concerns; Magdalena Fittoria will fill in for Howard through the end of the school year. The leadership team reviewed the budget update and the input from all stakeholders earlier in the day. There will be a board study session on February 9 regarding the budget. Skelly attended Senator Simitian’s forum on the state budget. He spoke about the plans of Westboro Baptist Church and the civics lesion it affords about the balance of freedom of speech and assembly.

Willick spoke about having Fittoria as a teacher and it being a good experience.

Consent Calendar MOTION: It was moved by Baten Caswell, seconded by Mitchell, and motion carried 5-0 to approve the consent calendar which included certificated and classified personnel actions; December 2009 warrants; and master agreements for commissioning agent services with Enovity and Test Marc.

MOTION: It was moved by Townsend, seconded by Baten Caswell, and motion carried 5-0 to adopt Resolution 2009-10.19 – Read Across America Day, March 3, noting the change from the March 2 date presented in the packet. Approved: Regular Meeting January 26, 2010 Page 1 MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2010 Information Mak explained the requirements for annual audits. Joyce Peters presented her report from Vavrinek, Trine, Day, & Co. She 2008-09 Annual Independent noted there were no adjustments. For state compliance, there was a qualified opinion on attendance for Gunn because Audit Report signed reports are required. The district is now required to meet GASB 45 requirements for benefit liabilities; the district is short on this requirement by about $900,000.

The Board clarified that GASB 45 contributions must be noted as a liability whether the money is set aside in a special reserve or not; thanked staff for the hard work to have a clean report; and clarified the district needs to apply for an exemption on electronic attendance reporting.

Information Skelly noted Golton had a photo presentation to cover the past month. Golton showed photos of students who are now Mid-year Progress Report on moved into the Gunn’s Industrial Arts building, a Duveneck bake sale, his Canopy award, and a student broadcast. Skelly Focused Goals then addressed focused goals update covering: • The mission • Strategic Plan Areas, including urgent issues for the second semester • Academic Excellence and Learning o Social-emotional support for students o Community Conversations o Living Skills o Sleep and K-12 Coordination of social-emotional teaching and learning o College readiness, graduation requirements, and maintaining excellence at secondary schools o Improve math instruction and support for new math materials K-12 • Staff Recruitment and Development o Improved staff development for all employees • Budget Trends and Infrastructure o Act as careful stewards of district fiscal resources o Renewing the parcel tax • Governance and Communication o Complete review and revamping of district Board Policies • Strategic Plan Review • Activities Around Focused Goals

Board member comments included appreciation for noting the budget restraints being faced; thanked staff for their help on holding back benefit costs; appreciated the progress being made on some of the goals; appreciated the work with the City and others on social-emotional work; noted the joint efforts on Project Safety Net; liked the Living Skills class and innovation in online learning methods; felt sleep is an important topic to address; noted the connection with the community on Everyday Math implementation; looking forward to the survey; wondered about trade-offs in focusing on this one adoption; spoke of how the parcel tax is using a three-pronged approach with reserves, reductions, and a parcel tax; looking forward to Strategic Plan review; noted how meaningful the work becomes with this kind of focus; conversation with high schools earlier in the day was inspiring; thanked McKinsey for their support; appreciated the openness of the process and review; noted the expectation is not to bat 1,000—no team does; noted the importance of professional development; hoped work would include looking within for new leaders. Student board members appreciated the social emotional support, particularly around sleep; and were concerned the online class wouldn’t provide social emotional support. Skelly noted the class would not be strictly online; seat time is involved.

Discussion Golton noted Arnold Teton, Tom Hodges, and Derek Keith were also in attendance. He reviewed the timeline for the Authorization to Solicit Bids for the project. Keith reviewed the design, including dry wells, bio-swales, and landscaping. Skelly talked about progressive equity Palo Alto High School Multi-use between the two high schools. Fields Board member comments included clarifying that other campus drainage problems will be addressed; clarified when the improvements will be made; asked about the variance in the grade; confirmed they have been reviewed by the facilities committee; clarified that water is not being reused; discussed the cost of the tank this would require and where in the process this would need to be defined if water reuse was desired; clarified whether the landscape committee has reviewed the plan; asked if the processes used at Stanford were being used at Paly; confirmed that the tree removal is being reviewed by the landscaping committee; confirmed plantings can move based on actual site work at the time and the location of other trees and utilities; asked about netting around the softball fields; noted the progressive parity is important; and asked about the bid alternates. Student board members felt the plans looked good.

The item will return on the regular agenda.

Action Skelly noted this item was discussed on January 12. Golton indicated the timeline. Hodges commented on security plans. Approval of Schematic Design for Board member comments included securing technology equipment; and clarified that work could begin early if there were Group 1 Projects at Gunn High approval by DSA; School MOTION: It was moved by Tom, seconded by Mitchell, and motion carried 5-0 to approve the schematic design of the Math/English and World Languages classroom buildings and new gymnasium at Gunn High School and to authorize staff to proceed with design development and construction documents for these projects. Approved: Regular Meeting January 26, 2010 Page 2 MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2010 Action This item was discussed on January 12. Approval of Schematic Design for Group 1 Projects at Palo Alto High Public Comment School Kirsten Essenmacher spoke about the loss of open space, views; and land use. She was concerned about the size of the building’s footprint.

Hodges noted security is being addressed. Board members comments included an appreciation for the input from the community and that it needs to be done early in the process; noted students and others had input throughout the process; noted the building is glass walled on one side; shared concern for how televisions will be used; and thanked everyone involved in the process.

MOTION: It was moved by Townsend, seconded by Tom, and motion carried 5-0 to approve the schematic design of the new Math and History/Social Sciences classroom building and Media Arts Center projects at Palo Alto High School, and to authorize staff to proceed with design development and construction documents for these projects.

Open Forum Anat Admati addressed the Track Watch efforts. She noted physical barriers and lighting are needed. She commented these are most often impulsive acts. She believed they have helped others and saved lives. She asked for support via endorsement of the project and in getting a message out to parents.

Discussion Golton introduced Ann Dunkin, director of IT. Golton explained the budget plan using Measure A bond funds. Dunkin Appropriation of Measure A Funds indicated she spent a lot of time at the schools learning about their needs. Her presentation covered: for Computers at All District • Staff Computers – four year refresh Schools • Student Use Computers – one computer per four students with a four year refresh • Fund allocations assumptions • Other considerations in meeting commitments

Golton noted it is difficult to know what technology and instruction will look like in eight years. He felt e-books will be available for all books in the future.

Board member comments included appreciation of how computers will be allocated; clarified what flexibility sites will have in choosing technology purchases; felt it was a fair plan and appreciated shifting this to ongoing funding rather than one time funds; asked what piloted tools become identified as essential to instruction; clarified whether there will be limitations in selections based on the abilities of those choosing the technology; confirmed the money cannot be used for staffing; appreciated the support that will be provided; clarified the Paly amount; asked that projectors are provided to teachers particularly at the secondary level; concerned about lab carts not always being available; noted the Kindel is already revolutionizing reading; and thanked residents for passing the bond that made this possible.

This item will return on the consent calendar.

Discussion Golton explained SASI has been around since 1995 and its deletion was planned. Dunkin’s presentation covered: Authorization to Issue a Contract • What a student information system is in an Amount Not to Exceed • Why it needs to be replaced $355,000 for a District Student • The selection process Information System • The selection team • The selection criteria • The decision and key differentiators • Infinite Campus benefits • Costs • Implementation Timeline • Choices

Board member comments included how clear the presentation was; appreciated the analysis; clarified that InClass eventually would be replaced; clarified what redundancy will provide; noted parents are looking for a way to access information about their children’s class time; noted there is a concern about schools accessing the data cleanly at the beginning of the year; noted high functionality cannot be expected from fifteen year old software; don’t want an application to be a barrier to people doing their work; and asked for a timeline of the functionality.

This item will return on the consent calendar.

Discussion Bowers explained this can occur several times during the course of the year. Variable Term Waiver for ROP Automotive Mechanics Teacher Board member comments included noting this was a popular teacher.

This will return on the consent calendar.

Approved: Regular Meeting January 26, 2010 Page 3 MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2010 Action Dr. Burton Cohen, director, explained the change to the charge. Board Policies Review Committee (BPRC) – Changes to Charge Board member comments included an explanation of the triage process, noting it tightened the role of the committee; Statement suggested there should be a policy on how policies are formed; appreciated the work; clarified this meeting did not need to be posted; and clarified the board may wish to refer a policy to the BPRC.

MOTION: It was moved by Mitchell, seconded by Klausner, and motion carried to adopt the proposed changes to the BPRC Charge Statement.

Discussion Golton explained the need for the addendum. Hodges broke down the scope of work. Authorization to Issue Addendum No. 5 to Deems Lewis McKinley This item will return on the consent calendar. Architecture

Discussion Golton noted this was approved at the City the previous night. Agreement Between the Palo Alto Unified School District and the Board member comments clarified the change in share from 50/50 to 60/40 has to do with the city capturing its increased City of Palo Alto Concerning the fees; clarified the gap between the maintenance costs and fees and how competitive they are; clarified the district was not Public Use, Brokering, and able to take on this expense more competitively; appreciated the partnerships with the City; appreciated the favorable rates Maintenance of District-owned for youth leagues; clarified how the sprinklers are monitored and controlled; and clarified the district pays for the water. Athletic Fields, Tennis Courts, and Basketball Courts Jointly Used by MOTION: It was moved by Tom, seconded by Klausner, and motion carried 5-0 to extend the meeting to 10:10 p.m. School Students and the General Public This item will be on the consent calendar.

Board Members’ Reports Tom attended the PiE meeting where they discussed the search for a new executive director. He was pleased to see the teacher grant program now supports collaboration. Skelly will follow up to thank PiE. Klausner asked for a copy of who received the grants.

Townsend noted she and Tom would be at City School Liaison meeting in the morning

Klausner noted the city has named a plaza after ?. She would like a resolution to recognize this naming.

Baten Caswell noted attendance at the TAG meeting and the areas identified for more housing in Palo Alto. She also noted there was an art evening at the district office the next evening.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:09 p.m.

______Secretary to the Board

Approved: Regular Meeting January 26, 2010 Page 4 BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Consent 10

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

TO: Kevin Skelly, Superintendent

FROM: Linda Common, Assistant Superintendent Administrative Services

PREPARED BY: Dave Hoshiwara, Career Tech Ed Coordinator

SUBJECT: Authorization to Accept American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Federal Program

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Academic Excellence and Learning

BACKGROUND This case service contract is designed to provide services through the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) to shared consumers of PAUSD Transition Partnership Program and the Department of Rehabilitation (DOR), San Jose and San Francisco District, as part of the PAUSD Transition Partnership Program cooperative program. The intent of these services is to prepare and assist the individuals(s) served to obtain and maintain meaningful employment. All DOR applicants/consumers referred for services under this contract will meet DOR and PAUSD criteria for services; and be mutually identified by DOR and PAUSD Transition Partnership Program as a cooperative program consumer who is expected to benefit from contract services. PAUSD will receive $96,386 in funding for the 2009-2011 school years.

ARRA funds are now labeled as PAUSD Transition Partnership Program Funds. These ARRA funds provide programs for job search and employment. The services available under this contract are designed to prepare the cooperative program consumers with the skills necessary to secure and maintain competitive employment in agreement with their Individual Plan for Employment (IPE).

Annual authorization by the Board of Education is required in order for the District to accept these supplemental funds.

FISCAL IMPLICATION There is no cost to the Palo Alto Unified School District.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Board of Education authorize the acceptance of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds through the 2009-2010 school years.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION BOARD RESOLUTION 2009-10.10 DR 324 (Rev 8-2009)

FULL Name of Corporation or Public Agency

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors or Board of Trustees of the above-named corporation or public agency has read the proposed agreement between State of California, Department of Rehabilitation (DOR), and above-named corporation or public agency and said Board of Directors or Board of Trustees acknowledges the benefits and responsibilities to be shared by both parties to said agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said Board of Directors or Board of Trustees does hereby authorize the following person/position

Name/Position of Person Authorized to Sign Agreement

of the above-named corporation or public agency on behalf of the corporation or public agency to sign and execute any and all documents required by DOR to effectuate the execution of contracts and/or amendments except to increase the financial liability of said corporation or public agency. This authorization shall remain in effect until the expiration of the contract and shall automatically expire at that time, unless earlier revoked or extended by the Board of Directors.

CERTIFICATION

I, the Recording Secretary named below, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors or Board of Trustees of above- named corporation or public agency at a meeting of said Board regularly called and convened at which a quorum of said Board of Directors or Board of Trustees was present and voting, and that said resolution was adopted by a vote of the majority of all Directors or Trustees present at said meeting.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand as Recording Secretary of said corporation or public agency.

Address Where Board Meeting Held

Date of Board Meeting Signature of Recording Secretary Date Signed

BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Discussion 11

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

TO: Kevin Skelly, Superintendent

FROM: Scott Bowers, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources Bob Golton and Cathy Mak, Co-Chief Business Officers

SUBJECT: 2010-11 Budget Balancing Plan

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Budget Trends and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND For 2008-09 and 2009-10, the state has faced unprecedented budget shortfalls. To balance the state budgets, K-12 education funding was reduced in each year. PAUSD’s projected share of the state funding reductions for these two years is a $2.6 million one-time reduction in 2009-10 and an estimated ongoing reduction of $4.4 million starting 2010-11. Because the reduction was known in July 2009 after the fiscal year had started and is a one-time reduction in 2009-10, the District was able to use one-time federal stimulus funds, categorical fund balances, and some of the general fund ending balance to cover the funding loss in 2009-10. For 2010-11 and beyond, the reduction is ongoing, and there are no ongoing resources to offset the funding loss.

Property tax revenue accounts for about 70% of the general fund income. Projected property tax growth for the current year is 1.88% and zero for 2010-11. The flat revenue growth is a reflection of the housing market meltdown, massive reassessment activities, and a negative inflation adjustment factor to the 2010-11 tax roll.

At the same time, enrollment continues to grow at a rate of about 2% a year. Next year’s enrollment growth is projected at 299 based on the latest December 2009 enrollment projection and using the average between the medium and high projections. As a basic aid district, PAUSD does not receive additional funding for enrollment growth.

The state funding reductions, flat property tax growth, and continued enrollment growth all lead to an imbalance in the general fund budget. The general fund budget is currently estimated to have a structural deficit of $5.1 million for 2010-11 as of the First Interim Financial Report.

The Governor released his budget proposal for 2010-11. Two items in his budget proposal will have negative impacts to K-12 education. The first is a negative COLA adjustment of -0.38% to school funding. The second is a proposal to reduce school district administration funding by $1.2 billion. The total estimated impact of these two items is about $2.5 million ($250,000 in negative COLA and $2,200,000 in estimated funding reductions to administrative costs). This will increase the estimated structural deficit from the $5.1 million estimated in December 2009 in the First Interim Financial Report to a current estimate of $7.6 million.

1 The District is taking a three-pronged approach to balance the 2010-11 budget. The tools for balancing the budget include:

• Using the general fund undesignated fund balance $2.1 million • Increased parcel tax revenue $1.8 million • Proposed budget reductions $3.7 million Total $7.6 million

At this time, there still are many unknowns that can affect the 2010-11 budget. The key unknowns include: the updated projection for the current year and ending fund balance, outcome of the May 4, 2010, parcel tax election, the adopted state budget for 2010-11, updated estimates to property tax revenue, and the actual 2010-11 enrollment. This plan will be adjusted as new information is received.

It is important to note this is the first of a series of projected budget reductions the District will need to make over the next few years to balance further projected structural deficits.

BUDGET BALANCING INPUT PROCESS On September 22, the Board of Education adopted the following values to guide the budget balancing process: 9 Maintain academic excellence 9 Avoiding layoffs is a high priority 9 Transparency and openness about our challenge 9 Continued support and fidelity to the district’s Strategic Plan 9 Participation by all stakeholder groups 9 Understanding of and dedication to what works educationally 9 Optimism about ability to solve problems 9 Long term fiscal health – no gimmicks 9 Staffing levels that sustain program quality as we grow

District administrators collaborated to create a budget balancing input process to provide stakeholders in our community with information about the PAUSD budget challenge and an opportunity to share their thoughts on ways to address the budget deficit. District administrators and school principals facilitated discussions with their staffs and site councils and gathered input from these groups on a broad list of budget balancing possibilities. In addition, the PTA Council prepared a survey for the parent community to gather targeted information on parent views around the budget challenge issue. The input from these groups and the additional ideas that came in to the District through [email protected] helped inform the discussions among the Superintendent’s staff.

The table below is an updated version of the table prepared and presented to the Board in September. It has been updated with additional activities and a timeline has been adjusted to reflect the actual meeting dates (in italics).

2 PAUSD Budget Balancing Process for 2010-11

Step 1 Responsibility Stakeholders Timeline Produce a Draft for Input Process Bowers/Common Cabinet Sept 21 Gather Budget reduction information from 03-04 Mak Sept 24

Step 2 Responsibility Stakeholders Timeline K-12 admin meets to explain process and gather input on Skelly/Bowers Admin Team Oct 6 the draft process Revise Process based on K-12 input Bowers/Common Oct 9

Step 3 Responsibility Stakeholders Timeline Leadership Team meets to generate ideas for budget Leadership Skelly/Bowers Oct 21 savings Team

Step 4 Responsibility Stakeholders Timeline Meetings with various stakeholders to generate ideas for PTA Council Bowers Nov budget savings: Prioritize items PIE, etc Classified meetings within each division to generate ideas Bowers/ Classified Nov for budget savings: Prioritize items Supervisors Department/staff meetings within each site to generate Principals Certificated Nov ideas for budget savings: Prioritize items Instr. Sups. Site Council meetings within each site to generate ideas Principals Site Council Nov/Dec/Jan for budget savings: Prioritize items

Step 5 Responsibility Stakeholders Timeline Master spreadsheet created of cost saving ideas from the Bowers All Jan 11 input process Cabinet meeting to draft cost saving recommendations Skelly Cabinet Jan 4, 11 K-12 admin meeting to review input and Skelly/Bowers Admin Team Jan 26 recommendations Cabinet meeting to complete recommendations for Board Skelly All Feb 1 Study Session and Regular Meeting

Step 6 Responsibility Stakeholders Timeline Board Study Session: Skelly All Feb 9 Invite PAMA, PAEA, CSEA, Conf/Sup, others

Step 7 Responsibility Stakeholders Timeline Cabinet meeting to finalize recommendations to Board for Skelly Cabinet By Feb 17 action

Step 8 Responsibility Stakeholders Timeline Board Discussion and Action Skelly All Feb 9/Feb 23 (Updated 2/1/10)

3 Participation in this process was outstanding. The District received budget balancing input from: 9 17 school staffs 9 17 school site councils 9 6 District classified departments 9 50 budget ideas submitted to [email protected] 9 Over 1,400 participants in PTAC survey 9 Over 200 additional budget saving ideas collected from sites

The PowerPoint presentation on the budget balancing process given during the Board Study Session the afternoon of February 9 is also included as an attachment.

The input from the stakeholder groups is captured in Appendices A, B, C, and D. Appendix A is a compilation of all the school sites (staffs and site councils) and classified departments. Appendix B depicts the PTAC survey results. The additional ideas generated by the sites and the emails to [email protected] are listed in Appendix C and Appendix D.

RECOMMENDATION Pending the discussion at this meeting, it will be recommended the Board of Education approve the list of budget reductions, items 1 to 25 (see next page) totaling $3,712,000 for the 2010-11 school year, at their regular meeting of February 23, 2010.

4 PROPOSED BUDGET REDUCTIONS FOR 2010-11 The following table lists the proposed budget reductions for 2010-11 totaling $3.7 million.

Cert Class # Type Level Item Description FTEs FTEs Amount 1 Revenue Other Transfer State Deferred Maintenance income to the general fund. $350,000 2 Revenue Elem PiE funds $40,000 more of the Spectra Art program cost. $40,000 3 Operational All Reduce per student site discretionary allocation by $35 (from $105 to $402,500 $70). 4 Operational All 25% of site rental income goes to the general fund. $125,000 5 Operational Sec Close Middle School pools from November to March. $75,000 6 Operational Elem Suspend "remediation" payments due to zero growth in property tax revenue projected for 2010-11 (per PAEA contract). Remediation $40,000 applies when individual class size exceeds the ratio in the contract. 7 Operational All Reduced General Fund support of summer school by increasing $100,000 tuition. 8 Operational All Reduce General Fund support to the Student Nutrition Services $50,000 Program by increased sales. 9 Operational All Eliminate off-site rentals for district events. $19,000 10 Operational All Reduce pony run to three days per week and reduce the warehouse $25,000 hourly personnel budget. 11 Operational All Reduce district print shop hourly personnel budget. $12,000 12 Operational All Reduce legal budget. $50,000 13 Operational All Reduce district-wide back to school event (chow-down) cost. $5,000 14 Operational Other Reduce district office contracted services/supplies budgets. $160,000 15 Operational All Additional employee medical opt out savings. $128,000 16 Operational All Savings in health benefit budget based on open enrollment plan $158,000 changes. 17 Operational All Reduce vacation day payouts by encouraging employees to take $20,000 vacation. 18 Operational Other Use December 2009 enrollment projection for 2010-11 budget - 3.00 $300,000 fewer growth teachers needed than the previous projection. 19 Other All Reduce primary language tutors to serve the neediest students. $92,500 20 Staffing Elem Increase elementary class size by 1 student. 2010-11 class sizes will 6.00 $600,000 saving be at 22:1 for K-3 and 24:1 for 4/5. 21 Staffing Sec Increase middle school class size incrementally. 2.40 $240,000 saving 22 Staffing Sec Increase Math and English class size in grade 9/10 by 1. 0.80 $80,000 saving 23 Staffing Elem Collapse 6 under enrolled classes at 2 elementary schools to 4 saving classes in 2010-11 to align with 2010-11 K-5 class sizes - savings of 2.00 $200,000 2 classes. 24 Staff All Further reduce district administrative personnel. 0.80 $120,000 reduction 25 Staff All Reduced classified support positions by 5.75 FTE. Details to be 5.75 $320,000 reduction worked out. TOTAL 15.00 5.75 $3,712,000 Breakdown: Revenue $390,000 Operational $1,669,500 Other $92,500 Staffing saving $1,120,000 Staff reduction $440,000

2/4/2010

Palo Alto Unified School District

BUDGET UPDATE

FEBRUARY 9, 2010

Budget Balancing Values y Maintain academic excellence y Avoiding layoffs is a high priority y Transparency and openness about our challenge y Continued support and fidelity to the district’s Strategic Plan y Participation by all stakeholder groups y Understanding of and dedication to what works educationally y Optimism about ability to solve problems y Long term fiscal health – no gimmicks y Staffing levels that sustain program quality as we grow

1 2/4/2010

Budget Situation

Structural Deficit Ending Balance September $5.7 million $5.9 million First Interim (December) $5.1 million $6.4 million Governor’s Budget $7.6 million $6.4 million Proposal

Note: This is an estimate based on data from School Services of California from analysis of the Governor’s proposed budget.

Budget Savings Enacted to Date

y There have been major effects to preserve resources. In the staffing budget, there is a total savings of over $2 million through the First Interim budget review in December. { Not hiring additional teachers for enrollment growth at the elementary level { Increased K-5 class sizes incrementally { Tighter staffing at secondary level { Soft hiring freeze { Savings include 15 new teacher positions, 1 director position, and 3.5 FTE classified support positions

2 2/4/2010

2009-10 Budget Savings Enacted to Date y In other areas of the budget, there is a total savings of over $450,000 through the First Interim budget review in December. Although mostly one-time savings in 2009-10, the savings will add to the ending fund balance. { Board election costs $125,000 { Legal services/consultants/supplies budget $250,000 { Summer School $ 91,000

Sources to Address Structural Deficit

1/3 of Ending Balance $2.1 million (rest of money to be used in “out” years) Parcel Tax* $1.8 million Budget Cuts $3.7 million

TOTAL $7.6 million

Notes: • There may be further savings during 2009-10 year that could increase the ending balance and/or reduce structural deficit. • This assumes district pays “fair share” of state budget cuts and reduced COLA. • *If passed May 4, 2010.

3 2/4/2010

Budget Balancing Input y Budget Balancing Process developed to provide PAUSD stakeholders with information on the budget challenge and an opportunity to share their views on the issue.

y Purpose of the input is to provide the Superintendent’s staff with a wide range of perspective on the budget issue. y The input is not to prescribe which budget saving ideas are recommended to balance the budget. y At school sites, both certificated staff, classified staff, and Site Councils reviewed budget balancing ideas and shared views on the priority levels for the various ideas.

Budget Balancing Input

y District departments (maintenance, transportation, district office, etc.), also had an opportunity to review budget balancing ideas and to provide input on priorities. y PTA Council sent surveys to parents and to the community to gather their perspectives on budget. http://paloaltopta.org/index.shtml y All groups invited to identify additional budget saving ideas during budget discussions and through emails.

4 2/4/2010

Budget Input Timeline y List of budget balancing possibilities generated by Leadership Team –October y Budget balancing possibilities shared with PAUSD stakeholder groups – November/December y Stakeholder groups have opportunity to provide input on budget balancing ideas – December/January y Superintendent’s Cabinet/Council reviews input and creates a draft of budget balancing recommendations – December/January/February y Leadership Team reviews draft of budget balancing recommendations – January/February y Board Study Session – February 9

5 2/4/2010

Items Not Being Recommended At This Time

y March 15 Certificated Staffing Layoff Notices y Elimination/Reductions to Major Programs y Reductions to Professional Development y Furlough Days

Areas of Focus

{ Energy usage and savings Ù Close facilities during breaks Ù Green toilets Ù Pool operation costs { Special Ed Study { District Office organization review { Further review of health benefits { Residency verification { Continue soft hiring freeze { Continue to manage use of employee overtime { Examine how technology can be used to realize cost efficiencies Ù Electronic vs. print { Delay adoption of new instructional materials when appropriate

6 2/4/2010

Areas of Focus

y Parcel Tax election May 4, 2010

2010 Budget Balancing Recommendations y Total Budget Reduction = $3.7 million y 25 items impacting all levels of the district

Revenue Shifts and Increases (Items 1-2) $ 390,000 Operational Savings (Items 3-18) $1,669,500 Other (Item 19) $ 92,500 Staffing Savings (Items 20-23) $1,120,000 Staff Reductions (Items 24-25) $ 450,000 TOTAL $3,712,000

7 2/4/2010

Revenue Increases

Transfer State Deferred Maintenance income $350,000 to the General Fund PAPiE Funds $40,000 more of the Spectra Art $ 40,000 program costs

Operational Reductions/Savings

Reduce per student site discretionary allocation by $35 $402,500 25% of site rental income goes to the General Fund $125,000 Close middle school pools, November to March $ 75,000 Suspend “remediation” payments for 2010-11 $ 40,000 Reduce General Fund support of summer school $100,000 Reduce General Fund support to Student Nutrition Services $ 50,000 Eliminate off-site rentals for District events $ 19,000 Reduce pony run to three day schedule $ 25,000

8 2/4/2010

Operational Reductions/Savings

Reduce District print shop costs $ 12,000 Reduce legal budget $ 50,000 Reduce District-wide back-to-school event (Chow Down) cost $ 5,000 Reduce District Office contracted services/supplies budgets $160,000 Additional employee medical opt out savings $128,000 Savings in health benefits $158,000 Reduce vacation day payouts $ 20,000 Use December 2009 enrollment projection for 2010-11 $300,000

Other Reduction

Reduce primary language tutors to serve the $ 92,500 neediest students

9 2/4/2010

Staffing Savings

Increase elementary class size by one student $600,000 • K-3: 22 to 1 • 4/5: 24 to 1 Increase middle school class size incrementally $240,000 Increase Math and English class size in 9th/10th $ 80,000 grades by one Collapse 6 under enrolled classes to 4 classes in $200,000 2010-11 (savings of 2 classes)

Staff Reduction

Further reduce District administrative personnel $120,000 Reduce classified support positions by 5.75 FTE $320,000

10 Board Study Session Appendix A School Site and Department Input

Composite of Budget Input from Staff/Site Councils/Departments Overall # Level Possibilities Savings Avg 1 1 Close Middle School Pools during winter months (don't heat) $75,000 1.13 2 1 Increase rental use fees of school facilities 1.22 3 1 Eliminate Off-Site Rentals for retreats/district events $19,000 1.25 4 1 Review & consolidate District Office staff & administrative duties-job audit 1.30 5 1 Reduce district cell phone costs $21,000 1.32 6 1 Enforce residency requirement for enrollment 1.32 7 1 Energy Savings: Adjust Energy Management System, green toliets, solar, etc 1.34 8 1 Eliminate ERB Testing $45,000 1.39 9 1 Eliminate parent conference stipend (minimum days instead) $150,000 1.42 10 1 Reduce Board/Superintendent contingency budget 1.43 11 1 Charge a Summer School rate to make it revenue neutral $133,000 1.44 12 1 Reduce general fund support of Food Service Program $100,000 1.46 13 1 Continue soft hiring freeze 1.48 14 1 Eliminate MARS testing $5,000 1.49 15 1 Eliminate district funding for refreshments $7,000 1.51 16 1 Review/reduce DO staff development program 1.52 17 1 Increase Elementary Class (by 1 student/class) $588,000 1.54 18 1 Reduce one Assistant Superintendent $193,000 1.56 19 1 Reduce BTSA coaches (depends on number of new teachers) 1.57 20 1 Reduce Transportation Costs 1.57 21 1 Freeze Professional Development/Conferences funds $56,000 1.61 22 1 Eliminate Professional Development Funds for Administrators $15,000 1.62 23 1 Eliminate Math/Literature lead teacher stipends $53,000 1.62 24 1 Eliminate remediation payments at elementary level $40,000 1.63 25 1 Start new Spec Ed classes to save Non-Public School Placements 1.63 26 1 Reduce number of pool maintenance staff $78,000 1.66 27 1 Review efficiency of Maintenance staff and reduced scheduling 1.68 28 1 Reduce/Eliminate Mileage Allowance 1.68 29 1 Eliminate all non-required bussing (Sp Ed & VTP required) $30,000 1.69 30 1 Review Special Education Budget 1.70 31 1 Limit printing costs 1.70 32 1 Restrict classified overtime 1.70 33 1 Eliminate volunteer coordinator position (.5 fte each school) $25,000 1.72 34 1 Cross train staff in schools for better use of staff and then savings in subs 1.73 35 1 Eliminate Stipends in Maintenance 1.73 Board Study Session Appendix A School Site and Department Input

36 2 Energy Savings: Mandatory facility shut down during breaks 1.76 37 2 Reduce Pony run to a three day schedule (1 to .6) $25,000 1.77 38 2 Eliminate Instructional Materials Center (IMC) (Reduce .5 fte) $269,000 1.77 39 2 Reduce Academy Program by one half $90,000 1.77 40 2 Eliminate Professional Devel. Funds for Confidential/Supervisory Staff $1,000 1.80 41 2 One Furlough day for all employees $570,000 1.80 42 2 Increase Production Profitability 1.83 43 2 One furlough day for certificted employees (could be staff dev. day) $428,000 1.84 44 2 Extend school day and reduce days (increase by 10 minutes/175 days) 1.85 45 2 Eliminate all custodial overtime (except where paid by rental agreement) 1.86 46 2 Utilize Kindergarten Teachers in the PM 1.87 47 2 Move Student Information System (SIS) to remote host 1.87 48 2 Increase Math and English in 9th and 10th class size (by 2 students) (by 1) $150,000 1.92 49 2 Reduce District TOSA’s (approximate savings per 1 fte) $98,000 1.93 50 2 Reduce one assistant principal at each high school (approx savings of 2 fte) $292,000 1.93 51 2 Increase 6th grade Class size to 28 (to 26) $490,000 1.94 52 2 Reduce Substitute Pay Rate by $5 (currently $135 daily/$180 long-term) $28,000 1.95 53 2 Eliminate lunch program (except free & reduced) $72,000 1.95 54 2 Eliminate/Reduce contract labor 1.96 55 2 One furlough day for non-certificated employees $140,000 1.97 56 2 Reduce H.S./M.S. data processing from 4.75 fte to 3.5 fte $72,000 1.99 57 2 Eliminate IS positions; have Dept. Chairs (savings from $100,000 - $400,000) 2.04 58 2 Reduce per student site discretionary allocation by $20 (currently $105) ($35) $233,000 2.04 59 2 Two Furlough day for all employees $1,140,000 2.06 60 2 Review/Reduce all technology expenditures 2.06 61 2 Energy Savings: Remove all small appliances from classrooms & offices 2.07 62 2 Review/Reduce Staffing in Transportation, Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds 2.08 63 2 Half of all site rental income goes to the general fund (25%) $175,000 2.10 64 2 Shift Music/Art programs to a Block grant? 2.11 65 2 Eliminate Primary Language Tutors $185,000 2.11 66 2 Eliminate Academy Program $180,000 2.12 67 2 Reduce data processing position (approximate savings per 1 fte) $73,000 2.12 68 2 Reduce Tech Lead periods (approximate savings .5 fte) $43,000 2.15 69 2 Close centralized attendance office: shift registration to sites 2.16 70 2 Reduce classified clerical support at the District Office (2 fte) $130,000 Board Study Session Appendix A School Site and Department Input

71 3 Reduce Spectra Art Program--PiE to take on program funding $40,000 2.16 72 3 Reduce secretary/clerk in Business (approximate savings per 1 fte) $60,000 2.16 73 3 Reduce HS Instructional Asst. positions (approx savings for 1hr/day at H.S.) $10,000 2.18 74 3 Reduce secretary/clerk in Art program (approximate savings per 1 fte) $57,000 2.22 75 3 Reduce dept clerical support (approx savings for 6hrs/day for total 1.5 fte) $75,000 2.22 76 3 Reduce Elementary School Clerk hours (saving for 1hr/day at each school) $96,000 2.23 77 3 Reduce secretary/clerk in Ed Services (approximate savings per 1 fte) $60,000 2.23 78 3 Reduce secretary/clerk in Information Technology (approx savings per 1 fte) $70,000 2.24 79 3 Reduce secretary/clerk in Music program (approximate savings per 1 fte) $60,000 2.25 80 3 Reduce secretary/clerk in Human Resourses (approximate savings per 1 fte) $60,000 2.26 81 3 Reduce Children’s Hospital school staffing (approximate savings per 1 fte) $98,000 2.29 82 3 Close Middle School Pools completely 2.30 83 3 Reduce classified staff for MS and HS libraries (approx savings for 2 fte) $100,000 2.30 84 3 Reduce Library Media Teachers (savings of .1 fte per school totals 1.2 fte) $103,000 2.32 85 3 Reduce specialty periods – student activities, production (1 period per site) $86,000 2.33 86 3 Eliminate all inter-district transfers (including children of employees) $690,000 2.36 87 3 Reduce elective offerings/wheel at the MS (approximate savings per 1 fte) $86,000 2.38 88 3 Reduce Elem Instructional Aides (SIP/PiE funded-no general fund $) Site Funded 2.40 89 3 Employ classified librarians instead of certificated librarians (5 fte) $250,000 2.41 90 3 Replace certificated teacher librarians with classified librarians (10.65 fte) $547,000 2.43 91 3 Reduce all site and district budgets by 3% (includes staffing costs) $4,565,000 2.44 92 3 Reduce Traveling Music Team by one half (4.7 fte) $458,000 2.45 93 3 Reduce front office staff support (approximate savings for 1.5 total fte) $75,000 2.45 94 3 Reduce Traveling P.E. Team by one half (3.7 fte) $362,000 2.45 95 3 Eliminate District funding for Reading Specialists (3 fte) $258,000 2.47 96 3 Reduce custodial cleaning (A, B schedule) $250,000 2.49 97 3 District paid benefits for employees plus one $2,000,000 2.54 98 3 Eliminate Spectrum Art Program $40,000 2.55 99 3 Eliminate ELD Teachers at secondary level (4 fte) $344,000 2.60 100 3 Eliminate ELD Teachers at elementary level (6.95 fte) $667,000 2.61 101 3 Increase in Secondary Schools Counseling ratio (360:1 to 400:1) $170,000 2.62 102 3 Reduce Salary Schedule by 1% $1,098,000 2.63 103 3 District paid benefits for employee only $7,000,000 2.70 104 3 Eliminate Music traveling team (9.35 fte) $916,000 2.72 105 3 Eliminate P.E. traveling team (7.4 fte) $725,000 2.76 2009 PTA Council Survey of PAUSD Budget Savings Ideas All Respondents 1/12/2010 Not Option Rec Neutral Rec 1 Provide credit to students who pass on-line non-core required classes (i.e Living Skills) 68% 19% 14% 2 Eliminate 1 out of 3 assistant superintendent positions 56% 28% 16% Require supplementary programs to be entirely self supporting (i.e., summer school , 3 60% 21% 19% school lunch program-except for free/reduced lunches) 4 Replace high school Instructional Supervisor positions with Department Chairs 51% 31% 17% 5 Do not replace the district administrator who advises sites about elem curriculum 50% 32% 18% 6 Do not replace the district administrator who advises secondary sites about curriculum 48% 33% 19% 7 Reduce non-teaching staff work days 48% 31% 21% 8 Eliminate district funding for primary language tutors 54% 21% 25% 9 Reduce staff training days (3 paid days/year) 49% 26% 26% 10 Reduce data processing personnel by 50 percent 39% 40% 21% 11 Transfer 50% of school site rental income to the district 43% 31% 26% 12 Reduce clerk/secretarial staff in district administration office 37% 40% 23% 13 Increase elementary class size by one student/classroom 51% 17% 32% 14 Reduce number of school days 54% 10% 36% 15 Restructure special education program for cost savings 44% 25% 31% 16 Eliminate 1 out of 3 Assistant Principals at each high school 43% 25% 32% 17 Reduce library non-teaching staff 36% 36% 28% 18 Reduce school clerk/secretary hours by one hour/day 39% 29% 31% 19 Eliminate district funding for English language learner teachers 45% 18% 37% 20 Eliminate inter-district transfers for children of employees and special cases 37% 27% 36% 21 Rollback 2008-09’s 2.5 percent staff and teacher salary increase to 1.5 percent 39% 22% 39% 22 Eliminate district funding for English language learner pullout teaching staff 39% 20% 41% 23 Reduce district health benefit costs by paying employee plus one family only 34% 28% 38% 24 Reduce district health benefit costs by paying employee premiums only 36% 19% 45% 25 Eliminate district language arts specialist who trains teachers (TOSA) 28% 33% 39% 26 Replace librarians who hold teaching certificates with those who do not 31% 26% 43% 27 Close middle school swimming pools for year and exclude swimming from PE program 32% 20% 48% 28 Eliminate staffing at the teacher curriculum support library (IMC) 25% 35% 40% 29 Replace librarians who hold teaching certificates with those who do not 27% 28% 45% 30 Increase 9th and 10th grade Math and English classes from an average of 22 to 24 29% 19% 52% 31 Total elimination or 50 percent reduction of the district math specialists (TOSAs) 25% 25% 50% 32 Total elimination or 50 percent reduction of district funding for the Academy Program 26% 20% 54% 33 District reduces by $20/student the $105 it currently gives to the sites to spend 23% 27% 50% 34 Total elimination or 50 percent reduction of district funding for traveling P.E. teachers 25% 14% 61% 35 Increase Class Size in 6th Grade from 25 to 28 Students 22% 16% 63% 36 Total elimination or 50 percent reduction of district funding for traveling music teachers 21% 14% 65% 37 Reduce custodial cleaning staff 14% 23% 63% 38 Eliminate district funding for reading specialists who work with struggling readers 12% 16% 73% 39 Total elimination of parent teacher conferences 9% 12% 79% 40 Decrease funding for guidance, career and college counseling 8% 12% 81%

Rec'd vs Not Rec'd 1 Additional Possibilities from Staff 1 Stop printing board packets 2 Reduce Maintenance Manager/Supervisor 3 Eliminate middle management positions 4 No overtime 5 Do not bring in retired personnel to do work 6 Eliminate all mileage stipends 7 Change maintenance uniform company/eliminate laundry service 8 Reduce 2 classified managers-maintenance 9 Reduce 1 supervisor - maintenance 10 Close 1 elementary or middle school 11 Review and reduce staffing in HR, Admin, supervision & Board of Trustees 12 Reduce pay salary for all employees earning over $100,00 by 5% 13 Eliminate luxury perks 14 Eliminate union dues or reduce by half 15 Reduce employee contribution to CalPers to offset any reductions in salary 16 Eliminate storage compartment rentals & leases 17 Stop all new construction/Eliminate B4E & CID 18 Paid non-work days in Dec/encourage employees to stay home 19 Efficient central A/C in business office 20 Eliminate paper communications for HR Dept. 21 Increase deductibles on property/risk insurance 22 Install wood chip boilers to reduce heating costs 23 Renovate District Office/long term energy savings 24 Mandatory shutdown over holidays ie: December non-work days 25 30 or 32 hour work week (versus one or two day furloughs) 26 Reduce Primary Language Tutors vs. eliminating 27 Reduce ELD teachers vs eliminating 28 Reduce number of Reading Specialist vs eliminating 29 Stop M & O vehicles being used to run errands/do not load vans/buses for personal use 30 Everyone reports all absences, long lunches, late or leaving early time 31 Eliminate degree stipends for certificated 32 Eliminate all aide positions except student attendants 33 Eliminate Transportation Manager 34 Stop grandfathered coverage of PT employee benefits 35 Charge $5 for printed staff directory` 36 Investigate industrial accidents better 37 Find faster ways of terminating poor-performing employees 38 Reject unnecessary new program-growth spending initiatives 39 Audit "revenue centers", revamp, reduce or close negative-revenue operations 40 Restructure supervisory staff with few or no reportees 41 Restructure Classified & Certificated HR into one department 42 Phone out unsustainable 20:1 CSR as soon as politically possible

1 43 Eliminate comp days for 6th grade conferences & make them minimum days instead 44 Eliminate 6th grade conferences 45 Conduct fundraisers 46 StreamlineImplement moreresponse "green" to maintenance ideas - GOOS requests paper (number of people who show up to do one 47 project) 48 Eliminate consultants for staff development days 49 Examine & reduce the use of consultants at the district level 50 Check cost of televising school board meetings 51 Audit fleet services 52 Eliminate outside technology support (InClass, Infosnap, Cruncher) 53 Reduce landscaping costs/mow grass less 54 Open to purchasing something other than Apple products 55 Look at PiE funding for essentials 56 Force/Set photocopying machines to default at low-toner modes 57 Mandate 2-sided printing campus-wide Go WholeHog Electronic! *Allow laptops in staff meetings U stop printing the agenda on paper; 58 *Office staff, all staff default to using email, rather than putting notices in mailboxes 59 Online site registration for all JLS families (saves paper & postage) 60 Reevaluate expenditures for non-academic giveaways to students (does teambuilding=free tee shirts?) 61 Remain actively vigilant about PAUSD residency requirements Adhere strictly to Special Ed admission guidelines, rather than trying to slide students who do 62 not qualify into this long-term commitment of expenses 63 Get rid of landscaping turf in favor of no-mow, no-blow, low-water plant 64 Take a harder look at expensive gadget purchases (i.e. SmartBoards) 65 Review release periods--eliminate or replace with stipend 66 Review support period allocation for cost effectiveness 67 Eliminate Choice Programs 68 Go to year round school 69 Move 6th graders back to elementary 70 Open up third high school (Cubberly) 71 Solicit corporations for large donations 72 Eliminate Kid-by-Kid meetings 73 Eliminate District life insurance 74 Eliminate all stipends for meetings/extra duties 75 Give "Golden Handshakes" 76 Have school office open only 30 min. before & 30 min. after school 77 Group staff development days at the beginning of the year 78 Reduce lamination & binders for parents @ elementary level 79 Reduce prep time & make children's artwork - art by the children not art by the numbers Think before discarding materials - improve mechanism for offering non-used items to other 80 schools 81 If waste costs are reduced give the money to the school as an incentive 82 Reduce wastage in school lunch program - plastic boxes, etc. 83 Provide better food, made from scratch at a sensible cost 2 84 Cut energy costs 85 Cut paper copying/monitoring printing 86 Cover staff & families with only lowest cost health coverage (Kaiser). When making fiscal cuts, top admin/business office has to cut first and some functions just do 87 not get done. Goal would be ZERO program cuts. At least one Asst Super has to go. 88 Go after non resident students 89 Contract janitorial services 90 Eliminate Golden parachute 91 Cut superintendant bonuses 92 Classrooms are very hot-lower maximum temperature of classrooms Salary reduction 15-20% top admin; 10-15% middle managemen;t;5-10% credentialed 93 personnel; 3-5% classified personnel 94 No layoffs - everyone gives up something for the good of the whole Hire a grant writer to get funding for very large projects they pay for their own salary at the same 95 time 96 Pass the Parcel Tax 97 Lobby for increasing state funding for education 98 5 furlough days for everyone ($2,850,000.00) 99 Eliminate all district provided cell phones 100 Eliminate all bonuses 101 Fine tune all heating & AC units-too many classes are over heated & over AC 102 Do an energy audit Unplug unused appliances; teach teachers how to reduce energy use. Make teachers 103 responsible for energy consumption-have buildings compete to reduce energy 104 Eliminate PAR 105 Eliminate site mentor (for new teachers) stipend 106 Eliminate Cruncher 107 Eliminate food supplied at staff events (Chow down) 108 Don't subsidize "Full price" lunches 109 Do job audit & combine jobs/reorganize and combine jobs of workers 110 Have sites do some work of central attendance 111 Raise fee from $10 up for transcripts sent to college schools 112 Raise fee for after school athletics to pay for coaches and energy 113 Raise fees to pay for music - afterschool to pay for classroom rental, teacher, etc. 114 Share EDM materials by grade level (check out policy ie: thru library) 115 No purchasing of EDM materials for Bubble classes - share with other classes 116 Sub hours for office staff (do not utilize sub, if able) 117 Organize warehouse & distribute list of items so school sites can utilize and share items 118 Utilize school supply sales (back to school) if possible to purchase items in bulk) 119 EDM consumables - if possible to not purchase - Book consumables each year (ie: workbooks) 120 Overlap clerk/secretary hours to save on labor & benefits 121 Eliminate Pre-K program expansion 122 Increase "Green" focus throughout District 123 Turn off lights 124 Reduce custodial/hire out

3 125 Parent donation of school supplies 126 Reduce irrigation 127 Bottle water/payment if used 128 Cut aides hours 129 Reduce school supplies 130 Replace jet printers to laser printers 131 Reduce Sprectra Art 132 Eliminate Jr. Museum lessons 133 Reduce BTSA classes 134 Eliminate TOSAs 135 Reduce Release days 136 Reduce buying library books 137 Eliminate math specialist 138 Eliminate reading specialist 139 Eliminate science specialist 140 Eliminate sub days for staff development 141 Eliminate PDC/out of class days 142 Increase class size 143 Restructure Kindergarten teaching 144 Continue soft hiring 145 Cut lunch program Investigate money-saving postentials such as the use of Google Apps & more process 146 automation. Will allow people resources toward projects/tasks which cannot be automated . Certain positions can then be phased out overtime. 147 Strongly review cost/benefit of administrative positions. Reduction of custodial clenaing outght not be a consideration. School facilities need more not 148 less cleaning (especially at times of flu or other epidemics). 149 District Office furlough days 150 Reduce or eliminate grounds/maintenance 151 Athletics - Examine budget for cuts 152 Furlough Days - Take 2 during Thanksgiving for a one week break 153 Eliminate IB Exploration Table for now 154 Cut pay for teachers who do not attend tutorial 155 Reduce staff at District Office 156 Reduce salary/benefits of people in charge 157 Reduce Super & Assoc. Super salaries 158 Postpone opening ELD progaram at Paly 159 Redirect building renovation money to more vital needs 160 Increase load for Special Ed teachers 161 Consolidte guidance classified staffing 162 Put registration back at school site 163 Limit number of AP classes per student 164 No increase for District Management 165 Use Reserve 166 Review management salary schedule 4 167 Reduce prep time in MS & HS 168 Eliminate chow down 169 Reduce number of MS & HS minimum days 170 Use PTA mini fund for classroom materials 171 Eliminate Supervisor in IT, Business Services 172 Eliminate CO-CBO 173 Eliminate Director positions 174 Eliminate Manager in Business Service, Assessment 175 Eliminate consultants for Literarcy, etc. 176 Software licenses (need to audit first) 177 Offer incentives for people who would like to retire early 178 Review tenure process 179 Review/reduce new to District teacher courses 180 Printing student handbooks on as needed basis 181 Purchase quality desks that last longer 182 Timers for light switches 183 Review District calendar (semester ends in December) 184 Review attendance program (accountability) 185 Review/change class XP/SASI 186 Review/reduce Data Processor Position 187 Install better insulation in all buildings 188 Review book exchange (use all sites resources) 189 Reduce SAC clerks to 1 190 AP classes should have additional cost passed onto families 191 Adult Ed Program needs to be self funding 192 Put out a bid to energy Service Companies. Can do with other disstricts for better pricing 193 Reduce mailing paper costs, send report cards/warning notices on line 194 Eliminate Gate Coordination position/stipend. Shift to Admin 195 No cable television 196 Eliminate Aprenda testing 197 Reduce secondary art/music, p.e. if eliminated at elementary level 198 Across the board pay cut of 12% for full-time non-clerk district office positions 199 Reduce number of directors at district office by 1-2 full-time positions 200 Eliminate paid dinner break for night custodians 201 Sell kids crafts on internet 202 Let solar companies use our roofs and split power savings 203 Reduce the number of secondary preps by one for full-time position 204 205

5 Additional Ideas from [email protected]

1 Residency Requirements/families not leaving here have students going to our schools 2 Ask vendors for 10% reduction/hiring freeze/revenue fund raiser - auction 3 Seek imput from children - how to avoid waste 4 Saving achieved through energy, building system & budget audits - has 3 volunteers from Oracle Engery Prog. willing to help 5 Making Palo Alto residents aware - cutting programs; lower property value 6 Wants to know where to find budget online - where does money go 7 Offer eary retirement enticements to older teachers/make employees pay for part of medical and retirement 8 Do not cut Art Education 9 Utilize parent volunteers as much as possible 10 Watch utility bills - heat on, doors open 11 Eliminate class size reduction - research does not support benefits 12 Revenue generation idea - lease PAUSD rooftops to solar power generation co. 13 Reduce payroll - principals teach as subs 14 Wants to be hired as an Energy Mgr. to balance budget 15 Require proof of marriage & children full time students to be covered for medical 16 Having volunteers working at the district/have employees donate time 17 Buy only one set of books per student 18 Fully disclosure of cuts in budget already taken 19 Put all TOSA assignments on hold - return teachers to classroom 20 Having students/parents volunteer to clean-up, maintenance/have parents donate supplies 21 Teacher pay - Rollback of recent raises 22 Re-evaluate MI program - using scarece tax dollars to benefit small segment 23 Take close look at all choice programs offered - benefit a few students 24 City allowing large residential projects=more students/PAUSD gets little or no resource to compensate 25 Paperless paychecks 26 Lower engery bill by limiting heat 27 Extend Thanksgiving break to the full week off/eliminates two teaching days 28 Close middle school pools altogether 29 Pay schools to manage elections 30 Looking for Budget Book for 2009-2010 31 Eliminate supervisory postions/give responsibilities to manage of dept. 32 Lowering healthcare bills - cut out middleman, pay PAMF directly and have them deal with medical needs of employees 33 Change Facility Secretary to 6 hours per day 34 Fund raisers/rent out facilities during vacations/no more landscaping facilities/sell Pinewood campus 35 Get rid of MARS & ERB test/send TOSAs back to classroom/Staff Development Days-pay on volunteering basis 36 Observing dog lease laws - no off lease running on school property or charge a daily use fee per dog 37 12 reduction suggestions - see sheet in folder 38 Save money by conservation - over watering of landscape 39 Publish charts as to where PAUSD money is spent/Cut back on textbooks - ebooks 40 No district cell phones/use of volunteer coordinators/utilize school district liquidation website/employees give up one day of sick leave 41 City over crowding schools with additional building/pay cuts across board of District employees (cut salary not school programs) 42 Phase out Tinsley transfer program Every new housing project must incorporate funds for schools/access all new remodelilng projects with a school fee/equalize what 43 homeowners are paying for schools - based on true value of home 1 44 Do not balance budget at expense of special ed students 45 School District receive funding under the Recovery Act 46 District should function as a private sector (many suggestions) 47 Using more technology within the district 48 Way to make money - sell coffee in the morning when parents drop off children 49 Make money using Sharetivity.com--internet search for students

2 BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Discussion 12

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

TO: Dr. Kevin Skelly, Superintendent of Schools

FROM: Bob Golton, Co-CBO and Bond Program Manager

SUBJECT: Progress Report on Conceptual Design for Fairmeadow Elementary School

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Budget Trends and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND On October 27, 2009, the Board of Education authorized staff to execute Addendum No. 3 with Gelfand Partners to develop concepts for Fairmeadow Elementary School that would expand this campus to a four strand school. The anticipated outcome of this effort will be a proposed scope of work, a project budget, and a schedule for the project based on the recommended scheme developed by Gelfand.

Gelfand walked the site with the District construction team on November 10, 2009. After that, Gelfand attended a PTA meeting on December 1, 2009, to discuss concepts and gather input on ideas for the campus. Since that time, a site committee of 12 members, including the principal, faculty, staff, parents, and community members has participated in four site committee meetings. Gelfand has also presented the updated conceptual design options to the PTA on February 2, 2010, for additional input.

The discussions have included the addition of eight new classrooms allowing for replacement of all K-5 portable classrooms, a full four strand school, and a flex classroom. Discussions also have included planning for an expanded library, administration, and multi-use building.

Gelfand Partners will present the current options under discussion for Fairmeadow Elementary School for discussion by the Board of Education. Three preliminary site plans are attached.

After this Board of Education meeting, there will be a community meeting to receive feedback from interested community members, a presentation to the Fairmeadow site staff, and a final site committee meeting prior to returning to the Board of Education with a recommended concept plan for Fairmeadow in March.

RECOMMENDATION This item is being presented to the Board of Education for discussion and input only.

admin 2 2 1 1 1 1 expanded admin library

relocated bike parking 2

sp day

2 sp day

k 3 k play relocated parking 3 3 k

k multi-use

(e) science

portable

rsp garden flex

4 5 4

LEGEND 5

multi-use 4 day care JLS fire lane 5 admin 4 5

library

classroom Option A Fairmeadow Elementary School 2.2.10 kindergarten

portable

scale: 1/32” = 1’-0” admin relocated k k bike parking sp day sp day 1 1 1 1 multi-use

k play

flex

k rsp

3 2 relocated parking 2 2 3

(e) science

portable 4

garden 4 library

4 5

LEGEND 5 4

multi-use 5

JLS fire lane 5 admin

library day care

classroom Option B Fairmeadow Elementary School 2.2.10 kindergarten

portable

scale: 1/32” = 1’-0” admin sp day sp day 2 2 1 1 1 1 multi-use

relocated bike parking 2

flex

2 rsp

k k play 3 relocated 3 parking 3 k

k garden 4/5 k

4/5

(e) science

portable 4/5 4/5 library

LEGEND

multi-use JLS fire lane

admin

library day care

classroom Option C Fairmeadow Elementary School 2.2.10 kindergarten

portable

scale: 1/32” = 1’-0” BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Discussion 13

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

TO: Dr. Kevin Skelly, Superintendent of Schools

FROM: Bob Golton, Co-CBO and Bond Program Manager

SUBJECT: Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 50 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, California (Palo Alto High School)

A public hearing was held for this item, and it was also discussed by the Board of Education at its meeting of October 27, 2009. It is being presented for discussion again at this meeting, before staff requests adoption of this item at the next meeting.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Budget Trends and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND On March 31, 2009, the Board of Education approved the master plan for Palo Alto High School prepared by DLM Architects. Pursuant to this effort, staff engaged Environmental Sciences Associates (ESA) to provide environmental studies for the high school campuses.

ESA prepared an Initial Study and the subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration document for the master plan project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The project review period is complete, and a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed to local public agencies, concerned citizens, and interested parties. The review period commenced on October 5, 2009. A public hearing was held during the Board meeting of October 27, 2009, where several comments were made and the Board of Education requested a two week extension of the review period. The review period therefore ended on November 19, 2009.

No significant, unavoidable impacts have been identified. Some potentially significant impacts were identified related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, noise, transportation/traffic, and utilities and services systems. Each of these impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level when the identified mitigation measures are implemented. PAUSD staff agrees with the implementation of the mitigation measures and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which will ensure that environmental impacts from the projects will be less than significant.

The response prepared by ESA to the comments made during the review period was provided to those providing comments on January 29, 2010. No further comments were received to the ESA Response. The ESA Response was posted on the PAUSD website for the public on February 1, 2010. Attached is the Mitigated Negative Declaration that includes the responses to comments made during the public review period.

PROPOSAL Now that ESA has completed the final Mitigated Negative Declaration document and all comments have been addressed, it will be recommended at the next meeting that the Board adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Palo Alto High School master plan.

FISCAL IMPACT This is a regulatory approval for the master plan at Palo Alto High School. There is no fiscal impact as a result of this approval beyond what has been assumed for the projects at this campus.

RECOMMENDATION Pending the results of discussion at this meeting, it will be recommended at the next meeting of the Board of Education that the Board adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Palo Alto High School master plan.

PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL MASTER PLAN Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Form California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

1. Project Title: Palo Alto High School Master Plan

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Palo Alto Unified School District 25 Churchill Avenue, Building D Palo Alto, CA 94306

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tom Hodges, Program Director Telephone:(650) 329-3972 E-Mail: [email protected]

4. Project Location: 50 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94301

5. Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 008-02-034

6. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Palo Alto Unified School District 25 Churchill Avenue, Building D Palo Alto, CA 94306

7. General Plan Designation: School District Lands

8. Zoning: PF – Public Facilities

9. Description of Project: The proposed project includes construction of new buildings, renovation of existing structures, and other site improvements as part of the Master Plan for Palo Alto High School. See Project Description, below, for details of the Master Plan.

10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is within an urban area in the City of Palo Alto. Existing adjacent land uses include residential areas on the east and southeast, Stanford University on the west, and a commercial/retail shopping center on the north.

11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): During the Site Improvements, the project may require an encroachment permit from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for utilities tie-in to El Camino Real (State Route 82) and

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 1 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009

Initial Study

Project Description Background Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD or District) was founded in 1893. The District includes the City of Palo Alto, Stanford University, and areas of Los Altos Hills, Palo Alto Hills, and Portola Valley within its attendance area. See Figure 1 for attendance boundaries. PAUSD consists of twelve elementary schools (grades K-5), three middle schools (6-8), and two high schools (9-12). In addition, the District operates a pre-school, Young Fives program, a self-supporting Adult School, the Hospital School at Stanford’s Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital, and summer school. The District enrollment for the 2008/2009 school year was approximately 11,430 students.

Palo Alto High School (Paly), located at 50 Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto, has an existing student capacity of 1,950. Enrollment at Paly has steadily increased over the last ten years from 1,489 students in the 1998/1999 school year to 1,772 for the current (2008/2009) school year. The school employs approximately 116 certified faculty and administrative staff. The projected capacity of Paly at completion of proposed improvements in 2018 is 2,300 students, an increase of approximately 23 percent.

Long Range Facilities Master Plan / Measure A In January 2006, PAUSD staff presented to the Board of Education a School Site Status Report that provided an assessment of the improvements made to District facilities during the Building for Excellence Program and outlined the future needs of the PAUSD.1 The Board authorized staff to prepare a 20-year facilities master plan that would identify facilities needs that were not funded by the Building for Excellence Program and to outline a growth strategy to accommodate projected increases in enrollment.

The Long Range Facilities Master Plan (LRFMP) is a conceptual document that was presented to the Board in April 2007. The LRFMP includes an implementation plan for capital improvements, planned maintenance, and equipment and furnishing needs over the next twenty years. This document also incorporates current codes and principles from the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS).2 These standards incorporate the latest green building practices to reduce operating costs through sustainable and energy efficient design, reduce environmental impacts, and increase building life, while creating schools that are healthy and comfortable for students and staff.

1 "Building for Excellence" was a 1995 tax measure that funds upgrading school facilities and some technology items, such as computers. 2 The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) is the United States' first green building rating program especially designed for K-12 schools. CHPS provides information and resources to schools in order to facilitate the construction and operation of high performance institutions. A high performance school is energy and resource efficient as well as healthy, comfortable, well lit, and containing the amenities for a quality education.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 3 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 DR P NT A CE LO ES CR AL TO A E V T C T E S R S E E T S E

S W C L E O P M W N A L C T

A E M E C D

ARL

P N V R R M T E A E C S R C H H R Y D E D A A R T N D H U M A I O C T L I O E S L E D W R S T R R H D T R O T S U D E N N T O S A E V C L D I S GE T I WO N OD H DR F U U A L

E F M T O V H O A A M I N IL R T L N O S N E T O A T T VE S O T E SE T Y Y V N N WA L A E FOREST AVE N C ISO Y C A AD A T A M T S I S H V S T B R R Y E E D N D L IV R N N O A N I A L U S C R R I AU R D L K E R E I T FIFE AV NG F N S F A O L P E P N E S LN V IT D J K A K M A E MARTIN AVE AN N C IN I A A R R N R V B E E E A JA D O V V B VE S N H 3 A A Y T E L 3 T D

P U T D R N E D R L E L T V D A I L

R C S O E A SOMERSET PL TEVIS PL A U HO B E E R S T O C I R L V R A S O I T V DI AC E E E N A T H A P T O N T R M L L S A D E OD E E O R V O E V H V DW C A L S O E E WI S Y N P REGENT PL KENT PL EWE R A H L E O L PL E N A T D V B IVY LN

A R S A E L E O L W

N H R N A ; U O

C O T H T CH O C T H A AN C N T T ING D R AV H E T W N C C R N A A E I O N T S Y V I T H E I A

S R R A W

T I B O S W

N E

L S E L N A R Duveneck N 0 O T A E 3 L A S Y N C GREENWOOD AVE

V T 1 E N 5 F IN N 3 W L L 9 L E E A W O L

I P

R L I E 0 AL

D Y L N 2 OSE WA N PRIMR

C N T

C L L E T

E T S S R T R T F S E JORD E RA IE ARKER AV AN HA N H P H R L L CIS R N T D DR A

Y O 56 A CT

W E N

H WAL D E IN NUT DR N 3 G L L R 1 OIS

C L N W CA E PARKINSON AVE G E

N I RM

I L A LM D S S S A E L A A A N L C N O H R N T D Y A A S N T R R T A B S A C O E W A ; S TY LN A T COMMUNI T T T N N A T O A L T N T I E R S N Y R E HOPKINS AVE O T A A C M S R T W D G D D E A D N L N I B S E Y A P L E IN H A L R Addison P E O L O W N M L W A O V R IT B UI V O L T L C A I E H R R E R A H I E C R S Y S W N L E T I L C E T A I L M T D D S L M H B R D L E C S ID A A R C R R N A R H H O G D R R D IR A O T L T B C T K T IN E E A A E F T L S K F W S R B U N T IE A B D L A T R Y E S A A L N D L A D E IN D R A M H Y T N S N R W E S N W E B D I S D E DR G H 7 T O V U A L E N H O A E L T A R L W U R P R O N E R P R L ; G J N H E A D C A S A B U M A N A O A T Y R L N E IN A NO M M O 7 D H I C G R E 1 D R L A T S L E D W T 0 N W L R A R 1 D S R E S O T R E O I Y H L O D E C IG A N N V I L N L N R A H E P N E R A N S O V E D D D O E T H T A A M 8 E Hays C P A I N L I A O W A I G L E N T W M N E N F L C A N E R L F S E A N R S C O E IM E D N N E H L T E T O W M A T K V L E A F A I A A W R U I Y C IN S N L 5 M L N I S LL E A 9 IT G O O R E A N E E S A L C W E H C T L W W RD O E UCA B O N C V E ER Y A AD P V S L RC X O A L A BA L N C N N M E L E E I A O B N R U L O A K O E W G Y AV A M E R A L E A N A IN E P R W D C V L C O A EN A O N IR N H R A E L I P B N T G OR R R R E G L E O O R D C I TU S B A N N M Y Y P L E S VI R L R NEY RD N O W P Y AR N A W L A D D N H A W LN E E S L U D V T W T S M N R R A E Y R A

R ; A C A O B A D I N R E E S P G R H E L T D M FIEL E D A A D D L V E DING NE U R A I A X R DR V W C V R D O X L R L S E A A L T N E S S V D S Y B E E IL T S A IE M A A R N R M V H V M E S L N D D E M A A C S R R E O R A C O G R G S X U V S A P T D G A R Ohlone R T L H W R H C G GO D E E A O C E O ; E R H L W E D R R S Y LC L G P D W R D N R W E E I E A E D A D R R C A W K R L I Y E S T O L N OR M L T S M

A ABBORETUM RD E A W L A O V C R A A C A O SY E K Y P C ; L V M T L E S W O E R A S E V O T R V S T O U A R W A A MARION AVE E O C C N W I Y O E K S S R E A O D S T L L O O D D A IT E A R R U V D E N T E R I H S D R R A P P S S A R L U A N RA O E I T Y L Z G B N O L V W E T NDER A A L A O I R E B H V S G N C D W D A W L I S A T R Y W A K H S E E S E S CT R V G A G M A G NC H K A R L O A A Palo Alto HS O A E Y D O E T M K A W EN R V C A I IF R Y L Y I A L O E E E M R W R L E B A O C N L A R B L E NO D N N R 1 D E R C V R P A L E V R R E T E D R D A A E L E E 0 D S A GD C T T WILLOW RD PA R M A C V O R S Y L N D H H 1 T A D I T A A T I EU N I O O G I O R R L D V D T A O M W C R L C D R I N N B A L A M R E N AR E R L R A IT V T E G D M S O T A A O E Z C IPO T R N D A E T C N T N V S O N A C I I D D U A N C E S R C A A S S L E R L D L T S N V W R D K Q M V R A E E L M M IL A O E O L N R L U M E L T N L V E E I S A E A E T O D O Y E V N R A R H UM S J E V S S T A N A W A A B Y A C D AY A A E R R S V T K N V B C E P E I E A W M A W T L R V D R A E N P Y S A D T IC A A M O N A A U A D U H E N T M V D A R N S S R R Y T C R C A E R W K D P O O A R T E N A O G E R N C O T N CH Y W A OA R O N S E W C O T I N S L E I J A SW L S A O R O P L N IR V I A A T Y A L E R E M A C M A R EL R E J EDIC A CT T S W A A M C T C L LN V T C O RO E C N T D TH Y S O A W A S E AY S M W O D P R R E E A A E L M E H V W T C P A C V I A O E R S K E T N A L R V Y ; A A N A B L S P I TOCK F D R T Y ARM M T RD U E C A VIA MOR N H C RDE R P C U O IAL A W D EB W L S Y E L L A T O Y E R Y V A K A C R T D L U Y A P A B U R H A E O S M U S B A G E F A P L S L M R Y I O N L V L L G U I L O R Palo Verde M V L A T L S D T E L W O E L I E C E L T E L O O O T D S H D W E E E R R O C C D W L R T H V U R I R N AV R E I S U T U S S EA A B S O A L D R R O O V M L SV G U E O S G R IL N H F M CT A A N N R D LE O R N L L E R A R X Y NP A E I O M S L D I B N D Y T O E A O N O M U P S S C V N V R Y C S P K C T A C E AM I I D S BAR N O O N N T E T R R L R IN T R E E D G E D K A T L S N T A R S E O M R ED L A V C A IN S A R I C C D M E P C E E R K E B N T M T A A I W A O F V C U A T A R V A A T A N I A E A K ON R E U S B E R A A E L Y U H V R D A R E T S V A H V S O M L C T T M Q L A V L S A D R T A O L T A A M W O E A A N N E C V O A A S S E N S N L A E N O R ER E O CR P E S M Y N O D C I S THER S G L A T V C A W T SWA T G R S T Y C E T N D D D A N A T E E I O C T L L N IF O L C M SM A O G R I O EL SA J C L E A W R E N T I I T C T C E B D L C T T A D A IO T N N O F R H R E E N N R L K A E AL H EE ES IL I S C M Y E A P A R CY S I A U N R T C T A R L Q I A N S A V C T E N D A A E FA C A O L T B C N U A M A N T D N M D R D N L U J L A IC R

D T B A I W S L W AN A LE O W K S H TA E N N E IP A I S Y E AN C A T M A L E R L E RE Y LN C N I T HR E L Y Y O SA T O N I E S ST N V G C T T F

S I W K I T N E A S M E S L U C T D U A A N R R A A D S U D R R C A Y W O N A B E C R B M D S H E L Y V R R O A E D T L E L A E O N U E D V E A E R I S L L G L SC N S H T A V D O E R N E N D T A S B DID E S N V E N O T S O V O U O B L A A V R RD L O E W C L T P R A R A E A ; O C C N T A I O

K N D R T G V M P V W A E H V I E R E A R D V E S Y S E L C W D I I V I E I A A N CA N L N T R K L R A Y C OL R M A A A I E D A N W T C A Q N M H S R Richard W. Lyman C S T E W O T O S S E O T O T S O E T D T M VE B T R A B T V C A B VERNORS A S L E U E E E GO LAGU A V NITA DR N M A V A R M A I T B R A El Carmelo E E N H O W O R A M P C T E B F A E L N C E L O R I A A W R M E A I L P N O D G T L P P M A V E A B C R S A N S E R E Y O G Y L C L W O G R C R A D Graduate Residences R O E P E A W L R Y V T G I S M N E V D A D L R L E S E L E R E N H R L T V A E R N I A L A S V L W A R S H E S E F T E A Y O L IA V S N A P T T F G R C A S D L C I A S T E V A N N U L O A CHARLEST I C A E M ON RD L P R E N U Y T A N M N T C A T E A D N E G T C A T L B O A S H ; W N R I O L N A E S T M N plus Santa Teresa Lane W R E U S C N L A T C W N T V E T E G C VE N J T R R R I RO U I A H B S H G O N E R C D R N T IP O O O C E M M O B T Y E A R A A I E P S O I W N R R A R E O T R O S S L E L A E E N L E L C V S M R T L R T L IN B V I R R H T O N E A A L S A S E R T S M D T A BL L L ; W A R S H V A N A O D L S A T Y D H A L D T M C A P A Y VE O homes assigned to Palo Alto HS O R N O E W L A N V N E M L R A A L N R A A O ; O O N D S C IN B W R IT T S M N T T CISCO C T E R SE N E A T SAN FR F A

V R E V G E A A O R C DEscondido V L D L R S L AR E A S T S O P M U DA U A IL T A P C H M V H E LEGHORN ST PIERS LN M O R E R I E O R CA O A IN D A E D R A K N P AY O D I E A N JLS MS L S S N D R A V S T O V W A TM T N W A L D E E R R NZ S OU N E E D E Y T O LTO U D O T E I R L D H C W F S P L S A S W O T T N O I E A N N M D L O C A P L O A V C C M DO R L H D E IR N D RPA U E NT A A ESCA S O Y M L IT EL NADA WA IN R P R R A C ESPLA BI E UR R A D N L A C A O C N D J S E T E S U S O L T V V CT E O A O A S S N S A A E L T N S N A V E N T L A E ; N T L C R FO I R L VE P A U T I D A CT A R P T FE D D T S C R F A A L T R NT S N A N IR C A T 2 S A S W E S DO E S E N A W D S S E A A I H K E V N N M N I L S T A B TS A L R H E V T C N A G L A L Y R A E L A S P P O A G T M R V C R ORE I V S E D D T L E O E A H L L T A R A W R A R L E Hoover D O Y OL A T S V M R IN W E O C T T L K N N D E E W D R A N R E R I I L R M A E L W G P D Z SONOMA TER Y T K O P S H I V R C I A T M N S R D A C E O P AR T A E R R U A F O W D N K P C T D R W K IN N A A E G L M A UT L BS Y B CIR U J Y E V L F D A L U O L D O I A V V T L E R M D I E LA M R I P X R T S E V A D O D H E D T AC W A R T C A I J I R N P O M G T L R P C S I R D A P L R D A A U D O R N T L D S M E Y P L I T T L IA C E C V R A F S A IC N A D L Y L ID A I A M E I O E O V S S J O A N Y E E G T L P H E V N L L K A N N D E E C N D E V A L IO N E M C A TA C E R O RD A G ILLA VIS T N L E V TUDILL T A A V R E R T O E A S N U Y E A V A E C L A E E A S L C F N V O O M R E B R R E B I S P T A E R R E N IA D O I A V K L T L C T E R L N D A N R ; D L A I S A O A L N T I A A I D NC R O R B A W E IN S D M U T V T R D A D E T L O A C T A S T K A S O E H E T T V I E T Y R T M M R G D S S A S O V C A I C A A IN S V N N E L J Y W R E T L C V C L I A C A E P R K P A M V R R W R C O S D E I A D R P I T D R H T A O L A O A S M R R R A S L E E H O D L A D D P A A E NixonN E D L B A V N S R W E L U R O C H T R LA R W E E O A O C A C C U K P N Y O M E E M R A S A E O P YA L C T N P E C I T N B A O A N M T A T H N V L CT R V A M E E Y T P A W M R A T M P L O E E N S N A A P D I W D I L P Y S A N L E R H L T L R Z N S N M E HI G O R ; O N C E A A A L T M H E R D I C N D V L N A D O C D R T W D E L A L E E V E N T E Y B R R D A A E D A R E M B C R U O A N I A D V D L Y CT R N F N W R E O C L R I D N S H A L A T O Y W T T M R E E S A LA A A S I A S R N E Y U R W V O R A E L O F Y A A V U D A A L DR W L O IR A S C C R D H Barron Park N A M S D A W D PL I A F T AG L E W R R N A L H L T A O G A N I C C Y I O D H IN C L C E T F F LN R T I E N T N B W R ON N W A N R D H T M T E Y N T L A C O O R A W E N TA T E O A C C E K S S M B L Z D M A CT V T P L V C O L L M E N Y A A I A S O E A R P O O A T A G T E E L E A E N N T Y U M L B T S T W R N I A A E M A D R C A C C R L K C E O I A I E T D U A R E E W A H D J P R N L G V O A L N E E E D N A L V L U C E E V C J I A L F R M R U W I R S A D I A R D N A R Y A A M Y A B M I L Y E C P L L W A A K A V I E A W A E E N V M R E M E N O L I A L O R L S L R O N I I M R A I A E A R E D N N R M A S R S U T T L P R A L C P A N E PO A A A E T R G R H V C R T P S L E ER R A A A S R D D G C N H E I R SE U LE L L A G N M Y E IN A C A O A L D O T W L B A AV W E R E Y Y L B L E M L A W L A E R V N K O D A C ZA L Y E N Y A T R A L C R W N NE I T O N ; S A O T Z I U SU R R Z D R A E L N C O N IR S N C E CO P D IN A R G R Briones E L O V O L A S F E A L D V N D E E RI R SC KI M D G O N R IR L G P I C K E L A O C RT M A S O O T H O F O O UR N L R C A R T A A B G V P E S N I A E DON ; LO L AV ALD DR G E Terman MS M H F IR UBBA Y OO AN RTT NIG D DR O A WA T AVE Y H T

I C L T

L Y C

B E S I X S L O P L

R Y A D C W R L COYOTE HILL RD L I

P M

E A

A G

E ; D L

O M

J E

E P Gunn HS T H M R I A L L N L U V E E I I V L 2 E A

8 A 0 W A

L V A L E

I V

JAR H VIS E WAY K

A F A O N O R L O

R D T R O G I H B Y E I D M L R G MESA AVE O T LI N R L H NDA L I E N K S E C L E N C A X T D O C P C E M A Y E T R R C T

R O E D E L L T K D S R O EN D A E E R D G K A O D A O N B A L LD E MIR T TR MANUELA CT L C LN R A E H NE D RIS OHLO CE F TO PH CT ERS SPRINGHILL DR LN

H MANUELA WAY T E C N OLD A D T RAC N A E A LN O R M A KS CT ADY OA

W H M S

W A A RO N Y BB R F D D

R O

E L I M D C O R

A N

R T

M I L R

A L

N O

PALO HILLS DR U L

E N

L R I L

C A

T ARIC LN R A D

DI YALE CT

D I

R R WESTON DR D D A

O G E R T

D R O RO RD N H ARASTRADE S A A T ST J R IRRU F P W E V AY R H L T N A N O L A R A C L E N R R AV L E C D L B D I S I H E S R C L Y S R O I T R H D R D F E S O N D IN N B A E A I P A C T D L L T O C B D N E S A L T R E T S R M D R Y O R R E H AD I U CL H L IF L N F M E L C T N A T A I N A N D A R LN C R A T E LN K P R A LO B A L A A D CO B C NE A BALERI R R JO C Y ANCH RD CT C SADDL T E CT

AN ACA L PA R A CT D C N R O I M E S R S I D N R DA T O A E M RH C D I S R R R A D O

U A Z D N RD R A N LN R MOO E RO P S E E DE ROBL O DEL PASE N RA L T T C E S T D K N C E R E L E RA E R O V A L C I B N D E O O W T A M L R F RD D O O A L AIN R ISC N E V I E E C D V M N A A I O T A O T C N P L A C A A L E E IL A L V R S B A O I A R LUPINE RD LN O P MUEL LN SA W NO VENE D A BLE Y RO R R D E K V R IS A N O CT I LANC C P OBLE B VIA FELIZ A K R I P N L E O C A V E L R P IS C A R L R C N R L D O A A E IN R IS B DE S O X L MA E E T C TE L LN Y L AC T OR A RK A A C THREE FORKS LN FO LN P D N ORK W U E T LE F T R R IDD H A M G IS I D S R R C E I D W M O L A N

S R C

O D E N P T C C C IO B T C N U O B L R C U Y N B D T S FORK LN R Y I W R D R E R M Y S T C T ME L W ADOW CREEK CT N A W IN U T A N H D O A Y T W H A C D C Y E I I R L R L D L O G W I R C E R G D A E N Y E SIMON LN T A C E K L L L AU S L CT A RE A T N NA L LN N C D U O N DO A R R R L R Y A E N O H D M L N

I I L W R O G L A L L M A L N D L C V A E P I P M A N A N IT A A A AL R A L D T TR R RL R A S A E I RA DR D YUBA LN B NE ANDE E A B R L R O D C R Y A A L E T T N E W T A C A V K A A C T L I T T IE A C T I S S I R A T R A

V V O R R A L E A Y C N R D R N A A B I N D T M W L E V O A D U O C L I A G N A S E

N A R T S TR A O 2 O T N M L L A N R E P 8 D L VO N E O N

V D E C Y L G D 0 O L O A N W S I U

S O L

V E VIA E C D R CERRO G E ORDO C L D L W T E CA I LE N NA U D R D D R R S FOOT S O HILL SU IN LN A U R T N L N N U R C A A O T IS T L KM E O N C M LA F B A A R R M D N L R D Z E L T U R C O T E C C R I O L D L A R O L V P I N I S D R A D T O R CA E O R A R L W I NG S TO O N C CI N R

R T

O L

High School Attendance Areas Palo Alto Unified School District

Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc. 6/2007 www.Demographers.com

Palo Alto High School Master Plan . 209002 SOURCE: Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc. Figure 1 High School Attendance Boundaries, Palo Alto Unified School District Initial Study

On June 3, 2008, voters in the District approved a $378 million bond issue, Measure A (Palo Alto School Modernization and Expansion Bond of 2008), that would provide funding to implement the LRFMP.

The proposed project, the Palo Alto High School Master Plan (Master Plan) is a component of the LRFMP. PAUSD, serving as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is completing the required environmental review of the Master Plan pursuant to CEQA, prior to approval of the plan. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, PAUSD has prepared an Initial Study to determine the potential environmental consequences of adoption and implementation of the proposed Master Plan. This Initial Study provides the necessary information to inform PAUSD, other responsible agencies, and the public of the nature of the project and its potential effect on the environment.

Project Location and Existing Site Characteristics Paly was originally constructed in 1918 on an approximately 44-acre site (the project site) southeast of the intersection of State Route 82 and Embarcadero Road (see Figure 2). The campus is owned and occupied by the PAUSD, but the site has a reversionary clause to Stanford University on 26 acres. Adjacent land uses include residential areas to the east and southeast, Stanford University to the west, and the Town and Country Village shopping center to the north.

The Paly campus consists of 17 buildings constructed between 1918 and 2004. The original construction in 1918 included the Administration and Classroom Building and the Auditorium Building (also known as the “Haymarket Theater”). Much of the original administration/classroom building was demolished in 1972, leaving the two-story portion referred to as the “Tower Building.” In 1928, the original Boys’ Gymnasium was constructed; it was expanded in 1946 to provide locker and shower facilities and staff offices. The construction of the Industrial Arts Building was completed in 1945 and expanded to include an electronics classroom in 1955. In 1960, the Science Classroom Building was constructed. The addition of the Girls’ Gymnasium and the swimming pool were completed in 1969. In 1968, the Administration Building, Auditorium, and the Boys’ Gymnasium were extensively renovated as part of seismic retrofitting.

The majority of the other buildings on campus were constructed in the early 1970s. These include the following structures: Fine and Performing Arts Building, English Building, Lecture Center, Social Studies Building, Foreign Language Building, Math and Science Technology Building, and Resource Materials Center. These are single-story rectangular or square buildings with hipped tiled roofs and wood siding. The roof structure of these buildings extends over a walkway, which surrounds the buildings allowing covered exterior access to most of the classrooms, or exterior access to the interior classrooms. During the Building for Excellence program the majority of these buildings were modernized with the exception of the Library Building and the Fine Arts Building.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 5 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 SANTA ROSA VACAVILLE NAPA SAN FRANCISCO BAY FAIRFIELD EAST NOVATO VALLEJO PALO ALTO

SAN RAFAEL RICHMOND CONCORD WALNUT BERKELEY CREEK

OAKLAND

SAN ALAMEDA SAN WILLOW RD FRANCISCO RAMON

DALY CITY HAYWARD

FREMONT SAN MATEO

Pacific Ocean REDWOOD CITY PALO ALTO PROJECT MOUNTAIN VIEW SITE MIDDLEFIELD RD SAN JOSE

UNIVERSITY AV

EMBARCADERO RD 101 PROJECT LOCATION

ALMA ST

PAGE MILL RD 82

Stanford

EL CAMINO REAL

PAGE MILL RD CHARLESTON RD MOU VI

PALO ALTO

Mile

ARASTRADERO RD

Palo Alto High School Master Plan . 209002 SOURCE: ESA Figure 2 Project Location MOU

NT A AN S

FOOTHIL O L Initial Study

Other additions to the campus include a Student Activities Center and Woodshop in 1975 and a new Science Building in 2004. In 1998, following the Loma Prieta Earthquake, the Campanile of the Tower Building was separated from the structure and strengthened. The campus also includes approximately 17 relocatable classrooms.

Recreational facilities are located primarily on the southern portion of the campus and include a football field and track, baseball and softball diamonds, swimming pool, athletic field, seven tennis courts, and four basketball courts.

The PAUSD Administrative Office and Corporation Yard are also located on the project site. The Corporation Yard is located just north of the football field and the District Office occupies the southwestern corner of the campus. The District Office is a single- story structure, built in 1955 and expanded in 1960, and has its own parking area that is separate from the high school.

Parking areas surround the school buildings on the northern perimeter of campus off of Embarcadero Road. Additional parking is located on the south-central area of the campus between the football field and baseball/softball diamonds with access via Churchill Avenue. Approximately 555 parking spaces are available, not including 100 spaces at the District Office.

The campus is served by three access points: Embarcadero Road on the north, El Camino Real on the west, and Churchill Avenue on the south. The Caltrain railroad track is located on the east side of campus, which prevents access to the campus from this direction.

Proposed Improvements The proposed project features construction of new buildings and other structures; renovation of some existing buildings; utility and infrastructure improvements; open space and landscaping enhancements; and pedestrian/bicycle/vehicular circulation improvements.

Specific components of the proposed Master Plan improvements are summarized in Table 1, below. Construction of individual projects on the campus would occur in groups or phases over the time period of the Master Plan, with buildout targeted for 2017. Specific projects within each project group would be constructed over the same general time period, but not necessarily simultaneously. Locations of proposed projects are indicated on Figures 3 through 8. Improvements to the athletic field adjacent to El Camino Real (a non-Measure A project) is underway and scheduled to be completed in January 2010.

Renovations of existing buildings may include, but are not limited to, upgrades to electrical, communication, water and wastewater systems; replacement or modification of heating and cooling systems; lighting improvements; replacement of roofs; upgrade or addition of restrooms; improvement to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 7 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

(ADA) and California Title 24 requirements; and exterior improvements to walls, doors, and windows.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 8 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

TABLE 1 MASTER PLAN PROJECT LIST

Phase Project Description Schedule/Timeline

1a: Football Stadium Group 1 Replace existing bleachers Summer 2010 Bleachers Replace existing baseball and softball fields and 1b: Multi-Use Fields May 2010 – Feb 2011 facilities

Group 2 2a: Classroom Building New two-story, 27-classroom building 2011 – 2012

2b: Media Arts Center New building for media arts Miscellaneous utility improvements, including 2c: Utility & Infrastructure drainage and Central Plant

Group 3 3a: Theater New 600-seat theater 2012 – 2014

3b: Theater Parking Reconfiguration of parking area

3c: Library Renovation of existing library 3d: Lecture Hall (Building Conversion of building into 150-seat lecture hall 300A) 3e: Weight Room / Fitness New building to connect existing gym to future

Center 2nd gym

Group 4 4a: Career Tech Building New classroom building to replace Building 900 2014 – 2016 4b: Buildings 100, 300 & Renovation of existing buildings 700 4c: Tower Admin. Bldg- Renovation of existing building, including

Phase 1 accessibility 4d: Science Building Convert existing office space into science lab

5a: Tower Admin. Bldg- Group 5 Renovation of existing building To be determined Phase 2 5b: Haymarket Theater Renovation of existing building

5c: Gymnasium New gymnasium to replace existing small gym

5d: Gymnasium (Existing) Renovation of existing large gym

Group 6 6a: Student Center Renovation of existing building To be determined

6b: Quad Upgrade and enhance existing quad

6c: Utility & Infrastructure Miscellaneous building interior improvements 6d: Embarcadero / El Reconfiguration of access and parking areas Camino Access & Parking 6e: Churchill Ave. Access Reconfiguration of access and parking areas & Parking Miscellaneous landscaping and pedestrian 6f: Site Improvements improvements

SOURCE: PAUSD, 2009

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 9 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Palo Alto High School Master Plan . 209002 SOURCE: Deems Lewis McKinley Figure 3 Palo Alto High School Master Plan, Group 1 Projects Palo Alto High School Master Plan . 209002 SOURCE: Deems Lewis McKinley Figure 4 Palo Alto High School Master Plan, Group 2 Projects Palo Alto High School Master Plan . 209002 SOURCE: Deems Lewis McKinley Figure 5 Palo Alto High School Master Plan, Group 3 Projects Palo Alto High School Master Plan . 209002 SOURCE: Deems Lewis McKinley Figure 6 Palo Alto High School Master Plan, Group 4 Projects Palo Alto High School Master Plan . 209002 SOURCE: Deems Lewis McKinley Figure 7 Palo Alto High School Master Plan, Group 5 Projects Palo Alto High School Master Plan . 209002 SOURCE: Deems Lewis McKinley Figure 8 Palo Alto High School Master Plan, Group 6 Projects Initial Study

Group 1 Group 1 projects focus on improvements to athletic fields on the southern portion of the campus. Bleachers on the home side (west) of the football stadium would be replaced with a new approximately 1,400-seat bleacher section. A new handicapped lift and press box would also be included in this project. The multi-use field adjacent to the District Office would be redesigned and upgraded with new baseball/softball dugouts, batting cages, and scoreboards.

Group 2 Two new buildings would be constructed during this phase: a two-story, 27-room Classroom Building and a two-story Media Arts Center. The Classroom Building would include additional space for offices, conference rooms, and restrooms. Nine relocatable classrooms would be moved to the Quad and also adjacent to the pool to make room for the new Classroom Building. Other relocatables currently located where the Media Arts Center is proposed would be removed upon completion of the Classroom Building. The remaining relocatables would be removed at buildout of this phase. Other improvements during Group 2 would involve various infrastructure and utilities upgrades such as drainage and central plant facilities.

Group 3 A new 600-seat theater with support facilities is proposed under Group 3; the theater would be located just north of Building 100 and adjacent to Embarcadero Road. This site is currently used for parking; therefore, construction of the theater would necessitate alterations to the parking lot and a new alignment from Embarcadero Road. Other improvements scheduled during this phase include renovation of the existing Library with a new front entrance and interior upgrades and conversion of the existing Building 300A into a 150-seat lecture hall. Another new building, a Weight Room/Fitness Center would be constructed during Group 3. This structure would connect the existing Gymnasium to a proposed future gym (proposed under Group 5).

Group 4 (Unfunded)3 The existing Building 900 would be demolished as part of Group 4 projects. This building would be replaced with a new Career Tech Building featuring high bay flexible space, home economics, robotics, auto shop, classrooms, and will centralize custodial space. Three existing buildings would be renovated under this phase (Buildings 100, 300, and 700) to accommodate special education, world languages, and English. Renovations to the Tower Building would also occur, and would likely include installation of an elevator, upgraded restrooms, new windows, and repair of the building’s heating system. In addition, office space in the existing Science Building would be converted into a new science lab.

3 Design of specific projects listed in Groups 4, 5 and 6 is currently unfunded.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 16 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Group 5 (Unfunded) Additional improvements to the Tower Building would continue during this phase. Proposed upgrades include seismic retrofit as well as new space for offices and conference rooms. The Haymarket Theater would also be renovated as a part of Group 5 improvements, and would include seismic retrofitting and accessibility improvements. One new building is proposed for construction, consisting of a new gymnasium to replace the existing small gym. This new gym would become Paly’s primary competition facility with a bleacher capacity of approximately 1,800 to 2,000; the new gymnasium would also include offices and team rooms. The existing gym would be upgraded with accessibility improvements and would also be used as a secondary competition facility.

Group 6 (Unfunded) The last phase would feature expansion of the Student Center and would include a stage for large gatherings and other events. The adjacent Quad would be enhanced to create an improved pedestrian environment with new landscaping, furnishings, and other features. Access to the campus from both Embarcadero Road and Churchill Avenue would be improved as a part of Group 6 improvements. Improvements would reconfigure parking areas to maximize available space and redesign bicycle and pedestrian pathways. Additional changes under Group 6 would include other landscape upgrades and modernization of existing buildings that were not improved during other phases of the Master Plan.

Sources California Department of Education, DataQuest, http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest, accessed June 24, 2009. Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), www.pausd.org, accessed June 2009. PAUSD, Palo Alto High School Master Plan, 2009.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 17 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Environmental Impacts

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

1. Aesthetics Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Discussion a-c) Less than Significant. Paly is located on the block bounded by Embarcadero Road to the north, El Camino Real to the west, Churchill Avenue to the south, and Alma Street / Caltrain railroad tracks to the east. None of these roadways have been designated as or are considered eligible to be a state scenic highway, nor is the project site visible from a state scenic highway (Caltrans, 2009). However, Embarcadero Road is considered to be a scenic route by the City of Palo Alto and the entire length of El Camino Real between San Diego and San Francisco, including the portion through Palo Alto, is considered a State Historic Landmark (City of Palo Alto, 2007). In addition, while not formally designated as historic resources, the Tower Building (administrative offices) and the Haymarket Theater are considered historic buildings for the purpose of this CEQA analysis (see Checklist Item 5, Cultural Resources).

The perimeter of Palo Alto High School’s campus is heavily lined by mature trees. School buildings are mostly concentrated toward the middle of the site while ball fields and parking lots dominate the periphery. Like most academic campuses, buildings on Paly’s campus vary in style, massing, and height—generally ranging from between one and two stories—but they are united by a common color scheme that links most of the buildings and consists of beige stucco siding and red tile roofs. However, due to the number of trees that line the campus along El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road and substantial building setbacks from the surrounding roadways, views of the buildings on campus are intermittent or obscured.

Currently, the closest buildings to Embarcadero Road on the campus are set back approximately 185 feet from the roadway. The buildings along the Embarcadero frontage consist of relocatable classrooms and permanent classroom buildings. The relocatable classrooms are small mobile units with flat roofs and brown exteriors (see Figures 9 through 11 for existing views of the campus). These buildings are

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 18 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

not prominently visible from Embarcadero given the minimal massing and muted color of the structures and due to

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 19 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Relocatable and permanent classroom buildings along Embarcadero Road

View of Tower Building and Haymarket Theater from Embarcadero looking south

Palo Alto High School Master Plan . 209002 SOURCE: ESA Figure 9 Existing Views of Palo Alto High School Campus View of campus from Churchill Avenue and El Camino Real looking north

View of Tower Building from El Camino Real looking east

Palo Alto High School Master Plan . 209002 SOURCE: ESA Figure 10 Existing Views of Palo Alto High School Campus View of campus from corner of Embarcadero Road and El Camino Real looking southeast

View of campus from corner of Embarcadero Road and El Camino Real looking east

Palo Alto High School Master Plan . 209002 SOURCE: ESA Figure 11 Existing Views of Palo Alto High School Campus Initial Study

the trees that are located between the structures and the road. The permanent classroom buildings consist of one-story structures with reddish-brown hipped gable roofs. These buildings are also painted brown and are surrounded by colonnades with off-white columns. While two of these permanent classroom buildings are visible from Embarcadero Road, they also maintain a relatively low profile due to modest massing and use of the muted color scheme.

The Tower Building and Haymarket Theater are the most prominent visual features of the campus. The two-story Tower Building and Haymarket Theater exteriors are of the Spanish Colonial Revival style with red-tiled gabled roofs and beige stucco siding. The buildings contain various architectural embellishments including rounded-arched doorways and windows, and terra cotta arches on the facades. The bell tower on the Tower Building is visible from multiple viewpoints surrounding the campus. The buildings are set back considerably from the roadways. Haymarket Theater faces Embarcadero, but is setback approximately 400 feet. Views of Haymarket Theater from Embarcadero are intermittent due to this setback and the intervening trees. The Theater is not visible from El Camino Real because it sits behind the Tower Building. However, the Tower Building, which faces El Camino Real and is setback approximately 185 feet from the road, is highly visible from both El Camino Real and Embarcadero and serves as a defining feature of the campus.

Other components of the campus that front El Camino Real include a multi-use field (El Camino Field, which is currently under construction and scheduled for completion by November 2010), tennis courts, and the district offices. The district office building is located at the corner of El Camino Real and Churchill Avenue. These buildings are fairly nondescript, single-story structures with flat roofs and beige stucco siding. They are only intermittently visible from the adjacent roadways due to the trees along the perimeter of the campus. Views of the campus from Churchill Avenue are dominated by sports fields in the foreground with one- and two-story buildings in the background.

Under the proposed Master Plan, there would be several new buildings constructed on Paly’s campus. In keeping with the existing development pattern, new buildings would be concentrated toward the center of the campus with deep setbacks from the roadways. Specifically, a two-story Media Arts Center and a 600-seat theater would be constructed that would likely be visible from Embarcadero Road. The Media Arts Center would replace the group of single-story, small-scale relocatable classrooms that are located in the northern portion of the campus with a two-story structure. The theater would introduce a new two-story structure on a portion of the site that is currently undeveloped (see Figures 3 through 8 in the Project Description). Both of these buildings would be setback from Embarcadero by at least 70 feet and would be designed in a manner that would be compatible with the current architectural styles of the campus.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 23 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

In addition, the student center would include a one-story addition, and an existing girls’ gymnasium would be replaced by a new gymnasium that could potentially be visible from El Camino Real. However, the student center addition would sit behind El Camino Field and would be set back approximately 285 feet from El Camino Real. The new gymnasium, which would be a two-story structure, would be located behind the tennis courts and would be set back approximately 245 feet from El Camino Real. Again, these buildings would be constructed in a style that would complement the rest of the buildings on campus.

The remaining improvements that would occur under the Master Plan would be minimally visible from public viewpoints. Except for the replacement of the bleachers at the football field, there would be no new development on campus near Churchill Avenue. Landscaping changes, including the removal of some of the trees located on campus, would occur under the Master Plan and could result in visual changes to the campus (see Section 4, Biological Resources). However, the trees lining the campus would remain largely intact and views of the high school would continue to be partially obscured by the mature perimeter trees.

Overall, the improvements that would occur under the Master Plan would result in minimal visual change along El Camino Real or Embarcadero Road. In addition, views of the campus from viewpoints along El Camino Real or Embarcadero would not be adversely affected. Views of the Tower Building from El Camino Real or of the Tower Building or Haymarket Theater from Embarcadero would not be blocked by any new development and would not be affected by changes that would occur under the Master Plan. As noted above, new development would be designed in compatible styles with the existing campus architecture. Thus, impacts of the Master Plan related to scenic resources (including scenic highways) or the visual character of the site and its surrounding would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant. New buildings developed under the Master Plan would include fixed exterior lighting attached to the building in order to promote safety. The campus is located in an urban environment that has existing sources of light and glare associated with nearby land uses. Adjacent homes to the south of the campus cast light from windows or from outdoor security lighting. Commercial uses to the north cast light from signage, parking lots and buildings. Stanford University, which is west of Paly, occasionally casts light from the ball fields that are located along El Camino Real. In addition, local roadways surrounding the high school provide street lighting and are also sources of light and glare. Ambient light generated by buildings that could be developed or improved under the Master Plan would be minimized on surrounding uses due to screening nature of the trees. Lighting on proposed buildings would be focused so as to illuminate a specific area and avoid spillover onto adjacent properties, particularly residential uses, to the extent possible. Overall, the project would result in less than significant light or glare impacts.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 24 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Sources City of Palo Alto, Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, adopted July 17, 2007. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Scenic Highway Mapping System website, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm, accessed July 21, 2009.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 25 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

2. Agriculture Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

Discussion a–c) No Impact. The project site is not located on or near any agricultural land, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. The project site, as with the majority of developed land in the City of Palo Alto, is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the California Department of Conservation (Department of Conservation, 2007). Therefore, the proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use and would have no effect on farmland or any property subject to a Williamson Act contract.

Sources California Department of Conservation, Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map 2006, August 2007.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 26 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

3. Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? f) Conflict with the state goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by the timetable established in AB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006?

Discussion a) Less Than Significant. The project site is located in the City of Palo Alto, within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Bay Area). The Bay Area experiences occasional violations of ozone and particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5) standards. Air Quality standards and regulations are enforced in the Bay Area Air Basin by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

When a project is proposed in a city with a general plan that is consistent with the most recently adopted Clean Air Plan and if the project is consistent with the land use designation of the general plan, then the project is considered consistent with applicable air quality plans and policies.

As discussed in Checklist Item 9 Land Use and Planning, in this Initial Study, the campus improvements and educational uses proposed as part of the project would not substantially conflict with the goals and policies in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Moreover, although not bound by local land use ordinances, project components proposed by the PAUSD would nonetheless be consistent with the land use designation and zoning for the campus.

The applicable Clean Air Plan (CAP) is the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. The City’s General Plan is consistent with the CAP because data and projections from the General Plan are incorporated into the CAP. The project, therefore, is consistent

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 27 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

with the plan. This is a less-than-significant impact because the project would not conflict with the region’s air quality management plan. b, c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Construction Emissions This analysis evaluates the effect of the site grading and the construction of Master Plan improvements on the local and regional air quality. Development of this project could affect local pollutant concentrations in two ways. First, during construction, the project would affect local particulate concentrations by generating dust. Over the long-term, the project might result in a slight increase in emissions due to new motor vehicle trips associated with accommodation of a larger student population.

Activities such as grading and excavation would generate substantial amounts of dust (including PM-10) from “fugitive” sources, such as proposed earthmoving activities to improve athletic fields and to excavate foundations; and vehicle travel over unpaved surfaces, and lesser amounts of other criteria pollutants from the operation of heavy equipment construction machinery (primarily diesel operated) and construction worker automobile trips (primarily gasoline operated). Construction-related dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. Construction activities may result in significant quantities of dust, and as a result, local visibility and PM-10 concentrations may be adversely affected on a temporary basis during the construction period. In addition, larger dust particles would settle out of the air close to the construction site resulting in a potential soiling nuisance for adjacent uses.

For the evaluation of construction-phase impacts, BAAQMD does not require a detailed quantification of construction emissions. Instead, it recommends that evaluation of the significance of impacts be based on a consideration of the control measures to be implemented (BAAQMD, 1999). Generally, if appropriate measures are implemented to reduce fugitive dust, then the residual impact can be presumed to be less than significant. Without these measures, the impact is generally considered to be significant, particularly if sensitive land uses (e.g., residential or scholastic) are located in the project vicinity.

The Master Plan improvements that would require the greatest degree of grading and earthwork would be the Group 1 improvements to the athletic fields on the southern portion of the campus. Other project elements would disturb much smaller areas of earth and have fewer construction impacts to localized PM-10 and PM-2.5 concentrations. The multi-use field at the southern end of campus is approximately 4.8 acres. Because construction grading would generate localized increased concentrations of PM-10 and PM-2.5 in an area designated as non-attainment for

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 28 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

these pollutants, without appropriate dust mitigation, the impact would be significant.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1: During future construction, PAUSD shall require the construction contractor(s) to implement BAAQMD’s “basic” and “enhanced” dust control procedures required for the multi-use field at the southern end of campus which is greater than four acres in area. These procedures would be required in addition to the “basic” dust control program, which is required for all construction sites and which would mitigate the potential impact to a less than significant level.

Elements of the “basic” and “enhanced” dust control program for project components that disturb more than four acres shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following:

Basic Control Measures • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.

• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).

• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.

• Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.

• Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.

Enhanced Control Measures • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).

• Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).

• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph).

• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 29 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

With implementation of these measures, project construction would not be expected to violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation in the project vicinity.

Operational Emissions Construction activities would also result in the emission of other criteria pollutants from equipment exhaust, construction-related vehicular activity and construction worker automobile trips. Emission levels for construction activities would vary depending on the number and type of equipment, duration of use, operation schedules, and the number of construction workers. Criteria pollutant emissions of ROG and NOx from these emission sources would incrementally add to the regional atmospheric loading of ozone precursors during project construction. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recognize that construction equipment emits ozone precursors, but indicate that such emissions are included in the emissions inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans. Therefore, construction emissions would not be expected to impede attainment or maintenance of ozone standards in the Bay Area (BAAQMD, 1999). The impact would therefore be less than significant.

The project would result in a net increase in emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, NOx and PM-10) primarily because of a resultant increase in average daily vehicle trips. Based on the traffic analysis, the proposed change in land use would result in an increase of approximately 886 net daily vehicle trips. Increased vehicle trips would lead to a small increase in ROG (approximately 3.9 pounds per day), NOx (approximately 3.7 pounds per day) and PM-10 (approximately 11.5 pounds per day) due to vehicle exhaust. Increases in emissions from stationary sources at the site (such as natural gas combustion for space and water heating, landscaping, use of consumer products, etc.) would also be minimal (approximately 0.08 pounds per day of ROG and 1.06 pounds per day of NOx). Together, operational emissions increases resulting from the project would represent approximately ten percent or less of the quantities BAAQMD identifies as significant (80 pounds per day of either ROG, NOx, or PM-10, individually. Therefore, once operational, the development under the Master Plan would not significantly contribute to a violation of any air quality standard in the area.

Cumulative Air Quality Impact In combination with other future projects in the project vicinity, the construction and operations of the proposed project would likely result in a small cumulative contribution to increases in pollutant emissions, but these would have less than significant impacts to air quality. Furthermore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Construction activities could expose sensitive receptors (students and residences located adjacent to the project site) to substantial pollutant concentrations, principally PM-10, from fugitive dust sources.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 30 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

However, with implementation of the dust abatement program described above in Mitigation Measure AIR-1, impacts from construction-related PM-10 emissions would be less than significant.

The proposed project would locate additional students, considered sensitive receptors, in an area established with existing scholastic uses and adjacent residential land uses. There are no major freeways or land uses that would be considered major (i.e., permitted) stationary sources of air pollution located within the project vicinity (1,000 feet). The only BAAQMD-identified sources facilities of toxic air contaminant emissions within one-half mile of the project site is Town & County Cleaners which would not be expected to represent a threat to the existing school land use or additional students under the Master Plan as they have changed to their processes to avoid the use of perchlorethylene solvents since publication of the last BAAQMD toxic report (BAAQMD, 2007). e) No Impact. As a general matter, the types of land use development that pose potential odor problems include wastewater treatment plants, refineries, landfills, composting facilities and transfer stations. No such uses would occupy the project site. Therefore the project would not create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. In addition, there are no existing odor sources in the vicinity of the project site to which future occupants of the project site would be subjected. f) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases. The major concern is that increases in greenhouse gases are causing global climate change. Global climate change is a change in the average weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the speed of global warming and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, most agree that there is a direct link between increased emission of greenhouse gases and long-term global temperature. What greenhouse gases have in common is that they allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere, but trap a portion of the outward-bound infrared radiation and warm up the air. The process is similar to the effect greenhouses have in raising the internal temperature, hence the name greenhouse gases. Both natural processes and human activities emit greenhouse gases. The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature; however, emissions from human activities such as electricity generation and motor vehicle operations have elevated the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This accumulation of greenhouse gases has contributed to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and contributed to global climate change. The principal greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and water vapor (H2O). Carbon dioxide is the reference gas for climate change because it is the predominant greenhouse gas emitted. To account for the varying warming potential of different greenhouse gases, greenhouse gas emissions are often quantified and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e).

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 31 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Executive Order S-3-05 In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series of target dates by which statewide emission of greenhouse gasses (GHG) would be progressively reduced, as follows:

• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and • By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of (Assembly Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32), which requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 (representing an approximate 25 percent reduction in emissions). Under AB 32, CARB must adopt regulations by January 1, 2011 to achieve reductions in GHGs to meet the 1990 emission cap by 2020.

CARB Climate Change Scoping Plan In December 2008, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (AB 32 Scoping Plan) outlining the State’s strategy to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions limit. The AB 32 Scoping Plan, developed by CARB in coordination with the Climate Action Team (CAT), proposes a comprehensive set of recommended actions designed to reduce overall GHG in California. The measures in the AB 32 Scoping Plan approved by the Board will be developed over the next two years and be in place by 2012.

OPR on CEQA and Climate Change The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) June 2008 Technical Advisory (OPR, 2008) provides informal guidance for public agencies as they address the issue of climate change in their CEQA documents. The June 2008 Technical Advisory offers recommendations for identifying GHG emissions, determining significance under CEQA, and mitigating impacts.

The June 2008 OPR Advisory states that lead agencies under CEQA should develop their own approach to performing a climate change analysis for projects that generate GHG emissions. The approach should be consistent for analyzing all such projects, and analyses should be performed based on the best available information. If a lead agency determines that GHGs may be generated by a proposed project, the agency is responsible for quantifying estimated GHG emissions by type and source. The June 2008 OPR Advisory also states that the lead agency must assess whether project emissions are individually or cumulatively significant and implement strategies to avoid, reduce, or otherwise mitigate the impacts of those emissions when impacts are potentially significant. Regional agencies can attempt to reduce

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 32 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

GHG emissions through their planning processes, according to the June 2008 OPR Advisory. Regional transportation planning agencies can adopt plans and programs that address congestion relief and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), for example.

Subsequent to the release of the 2008 Technical Advisory, OPR has developed proposed guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions under CEQA, following Senate Bill 97. On April 13, 2009, OPR submitted additions and amendments to the CEQA Guidelines to the Secretary for Natural Resources for certification and adoption by January 1, 2010.

CARB Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal, October 2008 In its Staff Proposal, CARB is taking the first step toward developing recommended statewide interim thresholds of significance for GHGs that may be adopted by local agencies for their own use. The proposal does not attempt to address every type of project that may be subject to CEQA, but instead focuses on common project types that, collectively, are responsible for substantial GHG emissions – specifically, industrial, residential, and commercial projects. CARB is developing these thresholds in these sectors to advance climate objectives, streamline project review, and encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions throughout the State.

CARB staff’s objective in this proposal is to develop a threshold of significance that will result in the vast majority (approximately 90 percent statewide) of GHG emissions from new industrial projects being subject to CEQA’s requirement to impose feasible mitigation. CARB believes this can be accomplished with a threshold that allows small projects to be considered insignificant. CARB staff used existing data for the industrial sector to derive a proposed hybrid threshold. The threshold consists of a quantitative threshold of 7,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year (MT CO2e/year) for operational emissions (excluding transportation), and performance standards for construction and transportation emissions. These performance standards have not yet been developed.

To date, CARB has only developed preliminary interim threshold concepts for industrial projects. No proposed thresholds for non-industrial project have been developed.

As with other individual and relatively small projects (i.e., projects that are not cement plants, oil refineries, electric generating facilities/providers, co-generation facilities, or hydrogen plants or other stationary combustion sources that emit more than 25,000 metric tons (MMT) CO2e/yr), the project specific emissions from the proposed project would not be expected to individually have an impact on global climate change (AEP, 2007) and the primary concern would be whether the project would be in conflict with the state goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 33 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Three types of analyses are used to determine whether the project could be in conflict with the state goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The analyses are reviews of:

• Assessment A: The potential conflicts with the CARB 39 recommended actions of the Climate Change Scoping Plan;

• Assessment B: The relative size of the project in comparison to the estimated greenhouse reduction goal of 174 MMTCO2E by 2020 and in comparison to the size of major facilities that are required to report greenhouse gas emissions 4 (25,000 metric tons of CO2E/yr) and proposed thresholds of CARB and SCAQMD; and

• Assessment C: The basic parameters of a project to determine whether its design is inherently energy efficient, will lead to wasteful energy use, or is neutral with regard to future energy use.

With regard to Assessment A, the project does not pose any apparent conflict with the most recent list of the CARB early action strategies as these are aimed at industry, water use and new land use development.

With regard to Assessment B, project construction GHG emissions were estimated with the URBEMIS2007 computer model. CO2 emissions from construction assumed peak annual GHG emissions would most likely occur during Group 1 improvements to the athletic field and would be the result of heavy-duty construction equipment fine grading an area of approximately 4.8 acres. Per the Project Description, this work would occur over a nine moth period in 2010 and 2011. GHG emissions from this activity were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 model of the CARB. Equipment exhaust also contains small amounts of methane and nitric oxides which are also GHGs. Non-CO2 GHG emissions represent approximately a three percent increase in CO2-equivalent emissions from diesel equipment exhaust. For purposes of analysis, it was assumed that non-CO2 GHG emissions from construction equipment would be negligible. The peak annual activity would generate 410 “short” or 372 metric tons (MT) per year of CO2.

The proposed improvements to Paly under the Master Plan would result in an increase in daily operational CO2 emissions from project-related traffic and area source emissions for space and water heating, as well as electricity demand. Operational emissions of CO2 from vehicle traffic as calculated by URBEMIS2007 would be 1,108 “short” tons per year or 1,005 MT per year. URBEMIS also calculates natural gas combustion emissions based on square footage of improvements. CO2 emissions from natural gas emissions are calculated to be 233 “short” tons per year or 211 MT per year. Electricity demand based on square footage of improvements and California specific emission factors of the California

4 The State of California has not adopted guidance as to quantitative significance thresholds for assessing the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change and global warming concerns.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 34 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Climate Action Registry and high school-specific electrical demand estimates would result in an additional 430 MT per year of GHGs emitted indirectly as a result of the project. Consequently the total CO2 emission rate resulting from implementation of the proposed Master Plan is estimated to be 1,646 MT per year.

When compared to the state facility reporting requirement for GHG emissions of 25,000 MT per year CO2e, the maximum GHG emissions for the project (372 MT per year CO2e during construction; and 1,646 MT per year during operations are not significant enough to require reporting to the CARB relative to the requirements of AB32. Additionally, although not yet adopted nor applicable to the proposed Master Plan, project GHG emissions would be less than the proposed 7,000 MT per year Preliminary Staff Proposal threshold for industrial projects under consideration by CARB.

With regard to Assessment C, in the absence of any definitive thresholds of significance, the GHG emphasis on a project-specific level is to incorporate project design features that reduce energy consumption and reduce vehicular travel as much as is feasible once such measures are adopted in the Climate Change Scoping Plan of CARB. Unless there is a greater shift to clean energy such as solar, hydroelectric, wind, nuclear, etc., no substantial reduction in GHG is likely attainable by conventional methods except through energy conservation.

GHG reduction options on a project-level basis are similar to those measures designed to reduce criteria air pollutants (those with ambient air quality standards). Measures that reduce trip generation or trip lengths, measures that optimize the transportation efficiency of a region, and measures that promote energy conservation within a development will reduce GHG emissions.

Because the proposed project consists of improvements under a Master Plan, there are no specific building details at this level of project development. Consequently, mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that development under the proposed Master Plan would be inherently energy efficient and commensurate with achieving the goals of GHG reductions under AB32.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Building development plans resulting from the Master Plan shall include “green building” features to reduce energy consumption to the extent practicable. These measures may include:

• Building design consistent with the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS). CHPS is a third party program that oversees the nation’s first green building rating program especially designed for K-12 schools. CHPS has published design guidelines and performance criteria specific to California schools.

• Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Site and design buildings to take advantage of daylight.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 35 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

• Plant trees and vegetation near structures to shade buildings and reduce energy requirements for heating/cooling.

• Preserve or replace on-site trees consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-3 (that are removed due to development) as a means of providing carbon storage.

• Install light-colored “cool” roofs and cool pavements. • Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment and control systems.

• Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting.

• Install water efficient fixtures and appliances.

Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant levels.

Sources Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December 1999. BAAQMD, Toxic Air Contaminant 2003 Annual Report, 2007. BAAQMD, Rules & Regulations, www.baaqmd.gov/dst/regulations/index.htm, accessed May 10, 2007. California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, April 2005.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 36 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

4. Biological Resources Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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? 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.) or state-protected wetlands, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Discussion a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. ESA conducted a reconnaissance-level field survey of the project area on July 9, 2009 to verify existing biological conditions, assess vegetation and wildlife habitats, and identify potential for special-status5 wildlife species to occur on-site (ESA, 2009). Palo Alto and surrounding cities on the San Francisco peninsula have been extensively developed in the last century, and while large tracts of open space exist on Stanford University property approximately 1.5 miles west of the project area, residential areas and high-traffic roads surround the Paly campus. The project site contains native and non-native trees including coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), sycamore (Platanus racemosa), spruce (Picea sp.), redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus gobulus), magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), and Monterey cypress

5 The term “special-status” species includes those species that are listed and receive specific protection defined in federal or state endangered species legislation, as well as species not formally listed as Threatened or Endangered, but designated as “Rare” or “Sensitive” on the basis of adopted policies and expertise of state resource agencies or organizations, or local agencies such as counties, cities, and special districts. A principle source for this designation is the California “Special Animals List” (CDFG, 2009B).

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 37 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

(Cupressus macrocarpa). Birds identified on campus were species accustomed to disturbance, including black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), common raven (Corvus corax), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemnalis), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), rock dove (Columbia livia), and scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica). Open spaces without many planted trees are either paved or landscaped grass lawns. Small areas of ruderal grassland with ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) and slender wild oats (Avena barbata) are present within the parking lot and in isolated areas on campus.

The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) documents 43 special-status species within the Palo Alto and Santa Clara U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles that include the project area (CDFG, 2009). No suitable habitat for special-status plant species was found on or directly adjacent to the project area, and it is anticipated that project activities will have no negative effects on special- status wildlife species except for the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii). Construction activities and tree removal may adversely impact nesting birds as well. These impacts are discussed below.

Special-Status Bats The pallid bat, hoary bat, and Townsend’s big eared bat could be present in trees or buildings at Paly. The pallid bat is a California species of concern present in most low elevations in California. Preferred habitats for the pallid bat include rocky outcrops with crevices and access to open areas, but they can be found in a variety of other habitats as well. Day roosts can be found in crevices, caves, mines, and occasionally hollow buildings and trees, while night roosts can be in more open areas such as open buildings or porches (Zeiner, et al, 1990). Pallid bats are nocturnal and present year-round in most areas of California. Local CNDDB occurrences include Stanford University, and within the cities of Menlo Park and Woodside (CNDDB, 2009). The hoary bat is a California species of concern and can be found at nearly any location in California. Maternity roosts of this species are typically found in woodlands with medium to large trees and dense foliage cover (Zeiner, et al, 1990). Hoary bats migrate between summer and winter ranges, but are present year-round in the San Francisco Bay Area. Hoary bats roost in tree foliage, and less commonly in buildings. Several historical CNDDB occurrences from nearby Stanford University exist for this species (CNDDB, 2009). Townsend’s big-eared bat is a California species of special concern also found in most of California. Roosting habitat includes caves, mines, tunnels, buildings, or other human-made structures (Zeiner, 1990), and maternity roosts for the Townsend’s big-eared bat are warm, while hibernation roosts can be cold. This species is especially sensitive to disturbance, and a single visit by humans may result in roost abandonment.

Removal of any trees or demolition of buildings containing special-status bat species in the project area would be a significant impact. This impact can be

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 38 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

reduced to less-than-significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: PAUSD shall require its contractor(s) to implement the following measures:

• Prior to construction or demolition activities within 250 feet of trees/structures with at least a moderate potential to support special- status bats, a qualified biologist (i.e., a biologist holding a CDFG collection permit and a Memorandum of Understanding with the CDFG allowing the biologist to handle and collect bats) shall survey for bats. If no evidence of bats (i.e., visual or acoustic detection, guano, staining, strong odors) is present, no further mitigation is required.

• If bats raising pups (also called a maternity colony) are identified within 250 feet of the project area during preconstruction surveys or project construction (typically April 15 through August 15), the PAUSD will create a no-disturbance buffer acceptable in size to the CDFG around the bat roosts. Bat roosts initiated within 250 feet of the project area after construction has already begun are presumed to be unaffected by project-related disturbance, and no buffer would be necessary. However, the “take” of individuals (e.g., direct mortality of individuals, or destruction of roosts while bats are present) is prohibited.

• Trees or buildings with evidence of bat activity will be removed during the time that is least likely to affect bats as determined by a qualified bat biologist (in general, roosts should not be removed if maternity bat roosts are present, typically April 15 – August 15, and roosts should not be removed if present bats are in torpor, typically when temperatures are less than 40 degrees Fahrenheit). Non-maternity bat roosts will be removed by a qualified biologist, by either making the roost unsuitable for bats by opening the roost area to allow airflow through the cavity, or excluding the bats using one-way doors, funnels, or flaps.

• All special-status bat roosts that are destroyed will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio with a roost suitable for the displaced species. The roost will be modified as necessary to provide a suitable roosting environment for the target bat species.

Nesting Birds Trees in and around the project area provide suitable habitats for breeding birds. Most native, breeding birds are protected under Section 3503 of the CDFG Code (Code), and raptors are protected under Section 3503.5 of the Code. In addition, both Section 3513 of the Code and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S. Code, Sec. 703 Supp. I, 1989) prohibit the killing, possession, or trading of migratory birds. Finally, Section 3800 of the Code prohibits the taking of non-game birds, which are defined as birds occurring naturally in California that are neither game birds nor fully protected species. To the degree feasible, construction activities would be scheduled to avoid the nesting season between February 1 and August 31. In the event construction or vegetation removal must be performed

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 39 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

during the nesting season, potential impacts to breeding or nesting birds could be significant and would be minimized to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: If construction or vegetation removal must be performed in the bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall be retained to survey the project area for nesting raptors and other birds and verify the presence or absence of nesting birds or raptors no more than 14 days prior to construction activities. If active nests are observed, buffer zones would be established around trees/shrubs with nests, with a buffer size established by the qualified biologist through consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency (e.g., CDFG). Buffered zones would be avoided during construction activities until young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned. b) No Impact. No riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities exist within the Paly campus. The nearest sensitive natural communities are the riparian corridors of San Francisquito Creek, Matadero Creek, and Lake Lagunita, all of which are more than one mile away from the project area. These riparian corridors are not close enough to the project area to be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities. c) No Impact. Wetlands are a subset of “waters of the United States,” which are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (33 CFR 328.3[a]; 40 CFR 230.3[s]) as rivers, streams, mud flats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters. These waters and their associated riparian corridors fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Fish and Game. The project will not be constructed within or near any jurisdictional wetland areas, and no impacts on jurisdictional wetlands by project activities are anticipated. d) No Impact. Areas around Paly are heavily developed, and any historically present terrestrial wildlife corridors have already been disrupted. Riparian corridors discussed in b) and extensive areas of oak savanna west of Paly provide connected habitats suitable for migration of various wildlife species. Most developed areas of Palo Alto provide habitat for urban wildlife in landscaped environments, but little native habitat exists to provide significant wildlife movement corridors around the project area. Additionally, large roads with high traffic volumes such as El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road restrict movement of many terrestrial wildlife species through the project area. No impacts on wildlife corridors are anticipated by project activities.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 40 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

e) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Many large trees grow within the project area, and proposed construction of new facilities may necessitate tree removal. Under the City of Palo Alto Tree Preservation and Management Regulations (Municipal Code Section 8.10) and the Tree Technical Memo (City of Palo Alto, 2001), trees designated as protected trees or street trees are subject to several conditions before removal. A protected tree is:

• A coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) or valley oak (Quercus lobata) tree greater than 11.5 inches diameter at breast height (DBH)6; • A redwood (Sequioa sempervirens) tree greater than 18 inches DBH; or • Any tree designated a heritage tree by the Palo Alto city council. • A street tree is any tree that grows within the publicly-owned street right-of- way.

Removal of any protected or street trees in the project area would be considered a significant impact. These impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through Mitigation Measure BIO-3.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: PAUSD shall require its contractor(s) to implement the following measures:

• Fulfill pre-construction requirements consistent with Section 2.15 of the City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Memo, including establishment of a tree protection and preservation plan; verification of tree protection; a pre-construction meeting with the City Arborist, community representative, and District Arborist to coordinate a tree replacement plan and protective fencing for retained protected or street trees; establishment of tree protection zones for retained trees; and trimming of any retained trees.

• Obtain a tree removal permit for removal of any street trees in the project area by submitting the following to the City of Palo Alto:

1) Protected Tree Removal Application; 2) Application fees; and 3) Letter report from a certified arborist including tree species, location, size (DBH, height and crown spread), condition, and life expectancy and prognosis.

• Obtain a permit from the City of Palo Alto Department of Public works for any construction activities occurring within the dripline7 of a street tree.

6 Diameter at breast height (DBH) is the diameter of the trunk of a tree 4.5 feet above natural grade. 7 Dripline area, as defined in the Tree Technical Manual, is the circular area underneath a tree with a radius equal to ten times the tree’s trunk diameter.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 41 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

• Remove no more than 25 percent of a protected tree’s canopy during pruning activities of retained trees, and remove no more than 25 percent of a protected tree’s root mass during construction activities.

• Replace all removed street trees as specified by the City of Palo Alto’s Director of Planning and Community Environment and in conjunction with standards described in section 3.15-C in the City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. f) No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 are designed to reduce cumulative impacts to special- status species and wetlands, and avoid conflicts with any other local plans or ordinances.

Sources California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), California Natural Diversity Database for 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles of Mountain View, Palo Alto, Commercial Version, accessed July, 2009. CDFG, California Natural Diversity Database. Special Animals (901 Taxa), www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdf, accessed July 2009. City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment, Tree Technical Manual, 2001. City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 8.10, www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/clk/municipal_code.asp, accessed July 15, 2009. ESA, Site reconnaissance, July 9, 2009. Zeiner, D.C., Laudenslayer, W.F., Mayer, W.E., and White, M., ed., California’s Wildlife, Volume III, Mammals, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA, 1990.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 42 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

5. Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 requires the lead agency to consider the effects of a project on historical resources. A historical resource is defined as any building, structure, site, or object listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or determined by a lead agency to be significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, or cultural annals of California. The following discussion will focus on architectural/structural resources. Archaeological resources, including archaeological resources that are potentially historical resources according to Section 15064.5, are addressed in b), below.

The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD or District) was founded in 1893. The District includes the City of Palo Alto, Stanford University, and areas of Los Altos Hills, Palo Alto Hills, and Portola Valley within its attendance area. The Paly High School campus consists of 17 buildings constructed between 1918 and 2004. The original construction in 1918 included the Administration and Classroom Building and the Auditorium Building (also known as the “Haymarket Theater”). Much of the original administration/classroom structure was demolished in 1972, leaving the two- story portion referred to as the “Tower Building.” In 1928, the original Boys’ Gymnasium was constructed. The construction of the Industrial Arts Building was completed in 1945 and expanded to include an electronics classroom in 1955. The Boys’ Gymnasium was expanded in 1946 to provide locker and shower facilities and staff offices. In 1960, the Science Classroom Building was constructed. The addition of the Girls’ Gymnasium and the swimming pool was completed in 1969. In 1968, the Administration Building, Auditorium, and the Boys’ Gymnasium were extensively renovated as part of seismic retrofitting. The majority of the other buildings on campus were constructed in the early 1970s.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 43 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Palo Alto High School’s Haymarket Theater and Tower Building are the last remaining connections to the original campus construction. Completed in 1918 and designed by the Los Angeles architecture firm of Allison and Allison in a Spanish Colonial Revival style of architecture, these highly visible buildings are a long- established presence in the community as a whole. The Tower Building in particular is seen as an icon and a defining image for the campus. While neither building is listed on the state or federal registers of historic resources, the City of Palo Alto does include these buildings on its Historic Resources Inventory. The Inventory identifies the Tower Building and the Theater as Category 2 buildings, defined as “any building or group of buildings of major regional importance, meritorious works of the best architects, or an outstanding example of an architectural style or the stylistic development of architecture of the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained.” Because these buildings are listed in the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory as Category 2 structures, the Palo Alto High School’s Haymarket Theater and Tower Building are considered historical resources under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

Provided below is a description of the exterior and interior features of each building, as well as an evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed project on these historic resources.

Haymarket Theater Much of the Theater building’s historic and architectural character resides in the main entry façade. A rooftop cupola and the arcade that connects the Theater Building to the Tower Building are also features that retain the historic and architectural qualities of the original campus. The roof tile, shared with the Tower Building, is another aspect of the original construction of the campus that carries historical import. The main entry facade has experienced some significant deterioration over the years; ornamentation such as the owls on top of the columns have been removed, the spiral, terra cotta columns are cracked in a number of places, original lighting has been removed, original doors have been removed and replaced, and years of wear and tear have generated the need to repair or replace windows, etc. A structural upgrade in 1934 removed a number of features from the building including high windows along each side of the auditorium. The interior of the auditorium was stripped almost entirely of its original character. Originally open to the roof structure above, the auditorium had a ceiling and structural bracing installed, which obscured the original structure from view. High windows were also filled in at this time, and a continuous ceiling and wall finish of striated plaster was installed. New light fixtures were added in the 1930s remodel. These alterations have an Art Deco style to them, which diverge from the Spanish Colonial Revival exterior of the building. The 1930s alterations, which occurred relatively early in the building’s history, may have achieved significance in their own right, however, and may help to convey the evolution of the building over time, including

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 44 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

improvements in seismic strengthening technology between 1918 and the mid- 1930s.8 As such, it is possible that the interior of the building also retains some degree of architectural merit.

The Haymarket Theater would be renovated under Group 5 of the proposed project. The proposed project would “modernize the existing building with limited building modifications to address accessibility issues.” Such activities would include new Americans with Disabilities (ADA) accessible entrances, ADA compliant stairs and handrails, ADA compliant restrooms, an accessible drinking fountain, exterior and interior ramps, and installation of an assistive listening system. Although the majority of the renovations would occur in the interior of the building, which was altered early in the building’s history, it is possible that the new proposed improvements such as the ADA entrances and ramps could also alter the building’s exterior character defining features.

As no systematic evaluation of the building’s exterior or interior character-defining features have been prepared, nor have final project plans been completed, the proposed project could have an adverse impact on the historic significance of the Haymarket Theater if they were not completed in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, which would be considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. CEQA Section 15064.5(b)(3) states that, “Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Weeks and Grimmer, 1995) shall be considered mitigated to a level of les than a significant impact on the historical resource.” As both the full extent of the building’s interior and exterior character-defining features are unknown, and given the lack of specificity of the proposed renovation efforts, it is conservatively concluded that the proposed project could have a significant impact on the historic significance of this building. Mitigation measures proposed to reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level are provided below

Tower Building The Tower Building’s historic character is expressed on all exterior facades and is highlighted by the original bell tower or campanile. The Spanish tile roof and arcade also reflect the character of the original campus. Elaborate terracotta ornamentation at the main entry is in relatively good condition. At the side (parking lot) entrance, the terracotta trim is somewhat deteriorated, portions are missing, and columns have been obscured by paint. Terracotta trim at the arcade is covered with layers of paint. The tall wood casement windows, a defining feature of the Tower Building, are in poor repair. Doors are generally neither original nor appropriate to

8 These structural improvements were likely made to the Haymarket Theater in compliance with more stringent seismic building requirements for all schools in California as a result of the devastating 1933 Long Beach Earthquake, which destroyed numerous civic and academic buildings throughout Southern California.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 45 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

the building style and many are not weather tight. Modern exterior lighting has been added that is out of character with the original building.

The interior layout/plan of the building is substantially intact, though historic light fixtures and finishes have been replaced with elements not in keeping with the building’s historic character. The building’s showpiece, the original library, is a grand vaulted space with its original wood structure exposed at the ceiling and is flooded with light from the very tall windows wrapping three sides. This room is currently divided by interior partial-height partitions that house the school’s Guidance and Counseling Offices. The ceiling is still visible, however, above these partitions. Interior finishes are showing obvious signs of age and wear. Floor finishes at the corridors are in poor condition, and glued-on ceiling tiles are loose in many locations.

The Tower Building would be renovated in two phases under Group 4c and Group 5a of the proposed project, respectively. Under Group 4a, the proposed project would complete “minimum upgrades required for safety, building integrity, and code compliance,” including the following: 1) upgrading the existing structural system to meet FEMA guidelines; 2) replacing windows in original Library for safety; 3) replacing/repairing select other windows that are damaged; and 4) numerous ADA upgrades, including elevator access to the second floor by inserting an elevator into the existing tower (requires shoring and deepening of tower foundations) or by appending a new elevator structure, which would provide accessible student and staff toilets on both floors, create accessible entrances, including ramps, at major entry points, modifying existing stairs where needed for accessibility code compliance, and replacing existing doors, frames, and hardware. Group 4c of the project improvements would also include: 5) mechanical upgrades, including changes to floor, wall, and ceiling finishes, and retrofit of existing stair tread heights. Finally, Group 4c work would also include: 7) replacing existing lighting where disturbed by work; and 8) upgrading fire protection measures to meet current standards.

Under Group 5a, the proposed project would include all of the above work under Group 4c, plus “upgrade building systems to meet campus standards, and modify existing layout,” including the following activities: 1) reconfiguring spaces/relocate users of existing spaces, including removing existing non-shear walls and reconfigure spaces for improved utility; replace existing bearing walls with beams/columns as required, remodel original library space to serve a more-public function, (e.g., lecture hall/meeting room/gallery); 2) replacing additional windows as required by new wall locations; 3) replacing all windows with new double- paned, Low-E windows for increased energy efficiency and thermal comfort; 4) ADA upgrades (see discussion above under Group 4c); 5) additional mechanical upgrades; and 6) additional electrical upgrades.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 46 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

As no systematic evaluation of the building’s exterior or inter character-defining features have been prepared, nor have final project plans been completed, the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the historic significance of the Tower Building if they were not completed in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, which would be considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. CEQA Section 15064.5(b)(3) states that, “Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Weeks and Grimmer, 1995) shall be considered mitigated to a level of les than a significant impact on the historical resource.” As both the full extent of the building’s interior and exterior character-defining features are unknown, and given the lack of specificity of the proposed renovation efforts, it is conservatively concluded that the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact on the historic significance of this building. Mitigation measures proposed to reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level are provided below.

Aside from potential direct effects to the Haymarket Theater and Tower Building described above, no other direct or indirect impacts to historic resources either on or off campus are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The addition to the Student Center under Group 6a of the proposed project, however, would be constructed approximately 30 feet to the east of the Tower Building. This proposed addition would have no significant indirect effects to the historic setting of the Tower Building, given the sufficient distance between these buildings, which would allow the Tower Building to continue to “read” as a separate structure. The proposed addition would also be subordinate to the Tower Building, and while its design of this new building has not been finalized, it is intended to be architecturally compatible not only with the Tower Building, but other buildings on the Paly campus. As such, the proposed addition to the Student Center would have no direct or indirect effects to historic architectural resources on the Paly campus.

Other proposed structures on the campus, such as the future theater and gym, would be located approximately 200 feet and 430 feet from both the Haymarket Theater and the Tower Building, respectively. Given these relatively wide separations between the historic resources and the proposed new buildings, there would be no indirect effects on the setting of historic resources at the Paly campus as a result of these new structures. Public views of the Tower Building, in particular, would continue to be available from El Camino Real, and its campanile would remain a visible icon for both the campus and the immediate neighborhood.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1. The PAUSD shall hire a qualified consulting architectural historian to review the architectural plans for renovations to both the Haymarket Theater and Tower Building for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. A description of the Standards is provided in Appendix A. Given that the Standards for Rehabilitation allow

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 47 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

a fair degree of flexibility and latitude in alterations to historic resources for code compliance while attempting to retain the majority of the building’s character-defining features, it appears possible that the proposed renovation efforts could meet the Standards.

The consulting architectural historian shall provide the District with an assessment of compliance with the Standards in the form of a brief technical memorandum, including recommended design changes for a more complete compliance with the Standards, if necessary. During final plan check review, the District shall evaluate whether the recommended design changes by the consulting architectural historian, if proposed, are reflected on the final designs for the renovation of the Haymarket Theater and Tower Building.

Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the project’s potentially significant impact to historic resources to a less-than-significant level. b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. This section discusses archaeological resources, both as historical resources according to Section 15064.5 as well as unique archaeological resources as defined in Section 21083.2 (g).

A records search was conducted at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (NWIC) at Sonoma State University on June 29, 2009 (File No. 08-1672) to: (1) determine whether known archaeological resources had been recorded within a 0.5 mile radius of the project site; (2) assess the likelihood for unrecorded archaeological resources to be present based on historical references and the distribution of nearby archaeological sites; and (3) develop a context for the identification and preliminary evaluation of cultural resources. During the records search, the following sources for information on historical resources were reviewed: the California Inventory of Historical Resources (OHP, 1976), California Historical Landmarks (DPR, 1996), California Points of Historical Interest (DPR, 1992), and Historic Properties Directory Listing (OHP, 2009). The Historic Properties Directory includes listings of the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources, and the most recent listings of California Historical Landmarks and California Points of Historical Interest. Historic topographic maps were also reviewed.

The project site is situated within the territory of the Costanoan—also referred to as Ohlone—language groups. Eight Costanoan languages were spoken in an area extending from the southern edge of the Carquinez Strait to portions of the Sur and Salinas Rivers south of Monterey Bay (Levy, 1978). At the time of Euro-American contact, Ramaytush speakers occupied the San Francisco Peninsula.

Levy’s 1978 summary of Costanoan lifeways describes territories as comprised of one or more land-holding groups, which anthropologists named tribelets. The tribelet, or village community, was a nearly universal characteristic throughout Native California, consisting of a principal village that was occupied year-round

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 48 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

and a series of smaller hamlets occupied intermittently or seasonally (Kroeber, 1925). Tribelet territories were generally defined on the basis of physiographic features (e.g., river drainage systems) and stretched between 8 and 12 miles across. Population densities within tribelets ranged from 50 to 500 people and were largely determined by the carrying capacity of a tribelet’s territory. San Francisquito Creek, located approximately one-mile northwest of the project site, was one of the most densely occupied watersheds along the San Francisco Peninsula during the prehistoric period. At the time of Euroamerican contact, two or more Ohlone tribelets may have occupied this watershed at the villages of puyšon and Ssiputca.

No archaeological resources have been recorded in the project site or within a 0.5 mile radius of the project site. The project site is located in an area mapped as late Pleistocene or early Holocene alluvium. This geologic landform has a low potential to contain deeply-buried soils or paleosols that would have once been available for human use and occupation. The project site has a low potential to contain archaeological materials, however the possibility cannot be entirely discounted. The following mitigation measure will to reduce potential impact to the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: If previously unidentified cultural materials are unearthed during construction, work should halt in that area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. Additional archaeological survey will be needed if project limits are extended beyond the present study limits. Prehistoric materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-era materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If any find is determined to be significant, the project proponent and the archaeologist will meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures. If the resources cannot be avoided they must be evaluated for their eligibility to the California Register of Historical Resources. c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals, including vertebrates (animals with backbones), invertebrates (e.g., starfish, clams, ammonites, and marine coral), and fossils of microscopic plants and animals (microfossils). The age and abundance of fossils depend on the location, topographic setting, and particular geologic formation in which they are found. Fossil discoveries provide scientific value because they help establish a historical record of past plant and animal life and can assist geologists in dating rock formations.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 49 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Subsurface excavations into undisturbed soils and rock beneath the high school could potentially disturb or destroy paleontological resources. Paly is underlain by Pleistocene-age (10,000 to 1.8 million years ago) alluvial fan and fluvial deposits, which are characterized by sequences of sand, silt and gravel that form gently sloping surfaces. These deposits originated from modern stream courses, which now deposit their sediment loads closer to the bay and in narrow stream valleys. Thus, these “stabilized” alluvial fan deposits are old enough to have stiffened and preserved the remains of Pleistocene organisms.

In fact, Pleistocene alluvium in California is well known for yielding fossils of extinct vertebrate mammals. Geologic mapping indicated that the unit locally contains fresh-water mollusks and extinct late Pleistocene vertebrate fossils (USGS, 2000). In addition, the University of California Museum of Paleontology database records show that similar deposits have yielded vertebrate fossils at eight different locations in San Mateo County (UCMP, 2009). These include fossils from a bison, mammoth, camel, horse, sloth and moose, as well as one bird species. The fossils were found in locations along the Pacific coast as well as along Skyline Drive in South San Francisco and along Middlefield Road in San Mateo County. The database did not have specific information on the location of the non-coastal fossils.

Because the Pleistocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits beneath Paly have yielded vertebrate fossils, it qualifies under the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines as a unit of high paleontological potential9 (SVP, 2006). While no information exists to refute or confirm the presence of fossils beneath the high school, and because the unit has a high paleontological potential, subsurface excavations beyond previously disturbed soils could disturb or destroy paleontological resources, which would be potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level by educating earth moving crews on the appearance of fossils, procedures to follow if any are discovered, and ensuring that a paleontologist assess the significance of any fossil find, and recovers it, if appropriate.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Prior to the start of any subsurface excavations, all construction forepersons and field supervisors shall receive training by a qualified professional paleontologist, as defined by the SVP (1995), who is experienced in teaching non-specialists, to ensure they can recognize fossil materials and will follow proper notification procedures in the event any are uncovered during construction. Procedures to be conveyed to workers include halting construction within 50 feet of any potential fossil find and notifying a qualified paleontologist, who will evaluate its significance. Training on paleontological resources will also be provided to all other construction workers, but may involve using a videotape of the initial training and/or

9 Paleontological potential refers to the probability that a rock unit will yield a unique or significant paleontological resource.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 50 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

written materials rather than in-person training by a paleontologist. If a fossil is determined to be significant and avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist will develop and implement an excavation and salvage plan in accordance with SVP standards (SVP, 1995; SVP, 1996). d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Based upon the records search, no human remains are known to exist within the project site. The proposed project will involve ground-disturbing activities; therefore the possibility that such actions could unearth, expose, or disturb buried human remains cannot be entirely discounted. The following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts attributable to the inadvertent discovery of human remains to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure CUL-4: If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during construction excavation and grading activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 48 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American, who will then help determine what course of action should be taken in dealing with the remains.

Sources California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), Historic Resources Inventory Form, Palo Alto Senior High School. Prepared by the City of Palo Alto. Historic Resource Board. 1978, 1981. California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), California Points of Historical Interest, Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, California, 1992. California Department of Parks & Recreation (DPR), California Historical Landmarks, Sacramento: State of California, Resources Agency, 1996. HMC Architects, Palo Alto Unified School District, Planning Study for Palo Alto High School Theater and Tower Buildings, June 2006. Kroeber, Alfred L., Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., Reprinted 1976 by Dover, New York, 1925. Levy, Richard, Costanoan in California, Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, 1978. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), Assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to nonrenewable paleontologic resources: standard guidelines, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, Vol. 163, 1995.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 51 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), Conditions of Receivership for Paleontologic Salvage Collections, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, Vol. 166, February 1996. University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), Collections Database, www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/science/collections.php, accessed August 20, 2009. United States Geological Society (USGS), Geologic map and map database of the Palo Alto 30’ X 60’ quadrangle, California, Prepared by Brabb E.E., Graymer R.W., and Jones D.L., USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies, Map MF-2332, Version 1.0, 2000.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 52 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

6. Geology and Soils Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Setting The City of Palo Alto is located along the southern portion of the San Francisco Peninsula. The landscape is typical of much of the California Coast Ranges, characterized mainly by northwest trending ridges and valleys of moderate topographic relief. The area is also characterized by numerous active and potentially active faults, and frequent earthquakes. The San Andreas Fault, a major tectonic and structural feature of the Coast Range that bisects the City’s foothill area, forms the boundary between the North American and Pacific plates.

The greatest hazards associated with earthquakes are fault rupture and groundshaking, although liquefaction hazards are significant east of U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) due to the porous nature and relatively shallow groundwater table. Other geologic hazards in Palo Alto may or may not include landslides, expansive soils, settlement, and erosion. Landsliding may result from heavy rain, erosion, removal of vegetation, or human activities. Settlement and subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal has historically been a problem in south and east Palo Alto but has been largely halted by groundwater recharge efforts and reduced pumping from local groundwater resources. Seismically- induced flooding is a hazard due to the possibility of dam failure at Felt Lake, Searsville

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 53 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Lake, and Lagunita Reservoir, as well as from the potential for levee failure near San Francisco Bay.

Discussion a.i) Less than Significant. Surface fault rupture is most commonly seen along traces of active faults during major earthquakes and results in observable offsets on the ground surface. On faults that generate horizontal movement (referred to as strike- slip faults) this displacement along a fault trace can cause considerable damage to a structure, even collapse. Non-structural damage from fault rupture includes distorted asphalt, severe utility damage, distressed foundations and extensive service disruption for transportation facilities. Surface fault rupture presents a substantial potential risk to people and property, especially in the San Francisco Bay Area where there are several active faults.

The project site is located approximately 5.3 miles from the San Andreas Fault and 3.4 miles from the potentially active Monte-Vista-Shannon fault. The State of California, through the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act), prohibits the development of structures for human occupancy across active fault traces,10 Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, the California Geological Survey (CGS) must establish zones on either side of the active fault that delimit areas most susceptible to surface fault rupture. These zones are referred to as fault rupture hazard zones and are shown on official maps published by the CGS. The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by CGS. The geotechnical investigation (Cleary, 2009) concluded that there are no known active or potentially active faults crossing the proposed building sites. Therefore, the hazard resulting from surface fault rupture at the project site is considered low and the impact is considered less than significant. a.ii) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Seismic ground shaking is a significant hazard within Palo Alto because of its close proximity to the San Andreas Fault, the Hayward Fault, the front-range fault system, and several other faults within the Bay Area that have the capability of producing a large magnitude earthquake. The level of shaking is influenced by various factors including distance to the epicenter, underlying soil or bedrock conditions, and the magnitude of the event.

In April 2008, a new earthquake forecast called the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) was released that updated the earthquake forecast for the Bay Area. Produced by the U.S. Geological Survey 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WG07), the UCERF evaluated the likelihood

10 An active fault is defined by the State of California as a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 10,000 years). A potentially active fault is defined as a fault that has shown evidence of surface displacement during the Quaternary (last 1.6 million years), unless direct geologic evidence demonstrates inactivity for all of the Holocene or longer. This definition does not, of course, mean that faults lacking evidence of surface displacement are necessarily inactive. Sufficiently active is also used to describe a fault if there is some evidence that Holocene displacement occurred on one or more of its segments or branches (Hart, 1997).

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 54 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

of one or more earthquakes of moment magnitude 6.7 or higher occurring in the San Francisco Bay Area.11 The result of the evaluation indicated a 63 percent likelihood that such an earthquake event will occur in the Bay Area before 2037.

Within this 63 percent probability, the Hayward-Rodgers Creek and San Andreas Fault systems are the two most likely fault systems to cause the event (UCERF, 2008). Therefore, the proposed project would likely experience at least one major earthquake (greater than moment magnitude 6.7) before 2037.

According to the CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA), peak ground acceleration at the project site could reach or exceed 0.5 g (CGS, 2009).12 The PSHA identifies the hazard from earthquakes that geologists and seismologists agree could occur. It is “probabilistic” in the sense that the analysis takes into consideration the uncertainties in the size and location of earthquakes and the resulting ground motions that can affect a particular site.

In addition, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined that ground shaking at the project site would most likely be felt as very strong if a moment magnitude 7.2 earthquake were to occur on the San Andreas Fault Zone (ABAG, 2009).

Ground shaking from a moderate to strong earthquake could generate ground accelerations at the proposed project site that could cause damage to structures, utilities, and/or unsecured equipment and objects. Specifically, the proposed school buildings and underground utilities could sustain structural damage, potentially causing injury to anyone present during an earthquake event. Damage from ground shaking could include cracking in walls and pavement and damage to exterior building elements.

Although some structural damage is typically not avoidable during an earthquake, current building codes and construction ordinances have been established to protect against building collapse and major injury during a seismic event. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The proposed construction shall comply with site specific recommendations made in design level geotechnical investigations by the District’s geotechnical engineers. These recommendations shall be designed to mitigate geologic hazards and shall become part of the project. The final seismic considerations shall be submitted

11 Moment magnitude is related to the physical size of a fault rupture and movement across a fault. The Richter magnitude scale reflects the maximum amplitude of a particular type of seismic wave. Moment magnitude provides a physically meaningful measure of the size of a faulting event (CGS, 1997). 12 “g” is equivalent to the acceleration due to gravity, or 980 centimeters per second squared. Acceleration is scaled against acceleration due to gravity or the acceleration with which a ball falls if released at rest in a vacuum (1.0 g). Acceleration of 1.0 g is equivalent to a car traveling 100 meters (328 feet) from rest in 4.5 seconds.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 55 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

to and approved of by the Division of the State Architect (DSA), prior to project commencement, to ensure compliance with the most current California seismic building codes. a.iii) Less than Significant. Liquefaction is the sudden temporary loss of shear strength in saturated, loose to medium dense, granular sediments subjected to ground shaking. It generally occurs when seismically induced ground shaking causes pore water pressure to increase to a point equal to the overburden pressure. Liquefaction can cause foundation failure of buildings and other facilities due to the reduction of foundation bearing strength.

The State of California, through the Seismic Hazard Zonation Program, produces Seismic Hazard Zone maps that identify areas of liquefaction and landsliding, as required by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. These maps depict “areas where historical occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and ground water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacement such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required.” The CGS Seismic Hazard Zone map for the Palo Alto Quadrangle (CGS, 2006) does not indicate any liquefaction areas on the project site.

The geotechnical investigation (Cleary, 2009) concluded that the likelihood of soil liquefaction during strong ground shaking to be very low; however, the sand and clay layers encountered in borings below the theoretically high groundwater table (estimated at 25 feet) were conservatively analyzed for liquefaction-induced settlement. Based on the results of the analysis, theoretical liquefaction-induced settlements of up to 1.54 inches could occur. However, because the computed settlement occurs below a depth of 25 feet, the likelihood of significant surface manifestation from settlement at such depth is low. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction would be considered a less than significant impact. a.iv) Less than Significant. Slope failures, including landslides, include many phenomena that involve the down-slope displacement and movement of material, either triggered by static (i.e., gravity) or dynamic (i.e., earthquake) forces. Slope failure is dependant on degree of incline, subsurface materials, precipitation, excavation, and seismicity. The type of failure can include deep-seated massive slope movements or shallow slump type movements.

The project site is generally level and it is not located within an “earthquake- induced landslide” zone according to the Seismic Hazard Zone map for the Palo Alto Quadrangle (CGS, 2006). Therefore, the potential impact of slope failure would be considered less than significant. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would require earthmoving, grading, and compaction. These activities may expose areas of soil that have previously been covered with asphalt,

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 56 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

concrete, or landscaping. This temporary loss of erosion control would expose bare soil, which would be subjected to erosion by wind and storm water runoff. Concentrated water erosion, if not managed or controlled, can eventually result in substantial soil loss and/or discharging of sediment into utilities, adjacent lots, or nearby creeks and drainages. Excessive soil loss can cause a potential threat to the structural integrity of structural foundations, earthen berms, or engineered fills.

Stormwater discharges from construction activities that disturb one acre or more are regulated by the local Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and are subject to the permitting requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Construction Permit). The General Construction Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities.

As fully described in Checklist Item 8, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mitigation Measure HYD-1, the PAUSD would be required to develop and implement a SWPPP in order to minimize potential erosion and subsequent sedimentation of storm water runoff. This SWPPP would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion associated with grading, trenching, and other ground surface-disturbing activities.

Since BMPs have been recognized as methods to effectively prevent or minimize the erosion, and the PAUSD will adhere to erosion control measures outlined in the SWPPP, the potential for erosion impacts during the various projects would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The soils at the project site in the upper five to 17-foot layer consist predominantly of stiff to very stiff sandy clay overlying medium dense to dense clayey gravelly sand, silty gravelly sand, and poorly graded sands and gravels to the maximum depth explored of 45 feet (Cleary, 2009). The potential landslide hazard for the proposed project is discussed above in Section IV.a.iv. Due to the absence of a free face in the vicinity of the relatively level site, and the generally high relative densities associated with the subsurface soils, soil lurching and lateral spreadings are considered unlikely (Cleary, 2009). With implementation of preliminary foundation recommendations and Mitigation Measure GEO-1, above, the potential hazard from unstable soils would be considered less than significant. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Preliminary foundation recommendations indicated that the upper sandy clay at the project site is considered to be low to moderately expansive based on its plasticity characteristics and laboratory test results (Cleary, 2009). The effects of expansive soils could damage foundations and aboveground structures, paved parking areas, and concrete slabs. Surface structures with foundations constructed in expansive soils could experience expansion and

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 57 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

contraction depending on the season and the amount of surface water infiltration. The expansion and contraction due to the behavior of expansive soils could exert enough pressure on the structures to result in cracking, settlement, and uplift.

Recommendations given in geotechnical reports require design and construction of proposed projects to follow engineering design criteria needed to improve and/or eliminate settlement from expansive soils conditions. The design and construction of the proposed project in accordance with the preliminary foundation recommendation by Cleary, and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, would ensure that the level of risk from expansive soils would be less than significant. e) No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater treatment disposal systems to handle wastewater generation. Therefore, no impact would result from project implementation.

Sources Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Earthquake Hazard Map for Palo Alto/Stanford, Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault System, www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickmapx.pl, accessed July 20, 2009. California Geological Survey (CGS), Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page, http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/pshamap.asp, accessed July 24, 2009. CGS, Seismic Hazard Zones, Palo Alto Quadrangle Official Map, October 18, 2006. CGS, Special Studies Zones, Palo Alto Quadrangle Official Map, July 1, 1974. California Public Resources Code, Division 2, Geology, Mines and Mining, Chapter 7.8, Seismic Hazards Mapping, Section 2693(c). City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan Update, 1996. City of Palo Alto, Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report, Comprehensive Plan Update, 1996. Cleary Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Investigations, Campus Improvements-Group 2, Palo Alto High School, July 30, 2009.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 58 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which 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? 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 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?

Setting Hazardous materials are handled and stored on a number of properties in Palo Alto, primarily in the East Bayshore and San Antonia Road/Bayshore corridor, University Avenue/Downtown, the South of Forest Area, and at the Stanford Research Park. Contamination has resulted from leaking underground storage tanks, disposal of hazardous materials, and various industrial practices. Fuel leak sites are concentrated in the areas of University Avenue/Downtown, South of Forest, the Stanford Research Park, and along San Antonia Road, Alma Street, and El Camino Real.

The California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is authorized by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce and implement federal hazardous materials laws and regulations, including disposal and transportation of hazardous materials.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 59 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Discussion a, b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database did not list any existing hazardous materials sites at or in the immediate vicinity of the school (DTSC, 2009). Three leaking underground fuel tank sites nearby have all been remediated and the cases have been closed. The proposed project includes re-grading in areas prior to new construction. Construction would require the use of certain hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, and glues. Inadvertent release of large quantities of these materials into the environment could adversely impact soil, surface waters, or groundwater quality. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce the risk associated with hazardous materials used during construction to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The PAUSD shall require the use of construction best management practices typically implemented as part of its construction activities to minimize the potential adverse effect of the project to groundwater and soils from construction activities. These shall include the following:

• Follow manufacturer’s recommendations on the use, storage, and disposal of chemical products used in construction;

• Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks; • During routine maintenance of construction equipment, properly contain and remove grease and oils; and

• Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals. c) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The project site consists of an existing high school. As under existing conditions, proposed development on the campus, including new classrooms, lounges, recreational facilities, and other associated educational facilities, would involve storage and use of limited quantities of hazardous materials such as cleaners, toners, correction fluid, paints, lubricants, kitchen and restroom cleaners, pesticides and other maintenance materials, but not to the extent of causing a significant impact.

Construction and renovation of the various Master Plan projects would be completed in phases over a period of several years with some of the work scheduled for the summer months. Considering the types and quantities of hazardous materials used and stored, and implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the proposed project would not emit or use acutely hazardous materials during either construction or operation that would significantly impact the schools or immediate area.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 60 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

d) No Impact. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; therefore, no impact would result (DTSC, 2009). e, f) No Impact. The project site is not located within the boundaries of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Palo Alto Airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No element of the proposed project would result in a safety hazard related to air traffic.

g) Less than Significant. The proposed project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Please also refer to Checklist Item 15, Traffic and Transportation for additional discussion of emergency access. h) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area and is not intermixed with or adjacent to wildlands. There are no elements of the proposed project that would increase the potential for wildfires in the project vicinity. All new buildings would be required to comply with all applicable fire code and fire suppression systems, and be approved by the Division of State Architect for fire and life-safety compliance. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with wildland fires.

Sources California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), EnviroStor Database, www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov, accessed July 21, 2009. City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan Update, 1996. City of Palo Alto, Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report, Comprehensive Plan Update, 1996. County of Santa Clara, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, Palo Alto Airport, adopted November 19, 2008. County of Santa Clara, Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area Map, February 24, 2009.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 61 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

8. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially 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 uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 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 of siltation on- or off-site? 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? 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 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? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 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? j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Setting The City of Palo Alto is located in the watersheds of several creeks and drainageways, including Adobe, Barron, Matadero, and San Francisquito Creeks. The Santa Clara Valley Water District regulates creekside development and provides flood control services in the City of Palo Alto. Barron Creek begins in the foothills of Los Alto Hills and flows northwest through Palo Alto until it joins Adobe Creek just west U.S. 101. Barron Creek is in a relatively natural state southwest of the project site. A flood control project was completed in 1996 that diverts excess flows from the creek into Matadero Creek during large storm events. Barron Creek flows in an underground culvert across the project site beginning at a Santa Clara Valley Water District retention basin on the western boundary of the campus.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 62 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Most of the urban core of Palo Alto is located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone X. These areas are outside the 100-year flood zone, but within the 500-year flood zone. Some areas are located within Special Flood Hazard Areas, which are subject to flooding in the event of a 100-year flood.

Groundwater in Palo Alto is contained in both shallow and deep aquifers formed in the alluvial deposits of streams running from the foothills to San Francisco Bay. Historical saltwater intrusion in the shallow aquifers along the bay has largely been reversed as alternative sources of water have been secured for irrigation and other purposes. Surface water bodies in and around the City include Felt, Searsville, Boronda, and Arastradero Lakes and the Lagunita Reservoir.

Discussion a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed project could result in potential water quality impacts during construction phases. Construction activities involving soil disturbance, excavation, cutting/filling, stockpiling, and grading activities could result in increased erosion and sedimentation to surface waters, which could produce contaminated stormwater runoff, a major contributor to the degradation of water quality.

Project construction would also involve use of motorized heavy equipment, including trucks and other construction vehicles that require fuel, lubricating grease, and other fluids. Accidental chemical release or spill from a vehicle or equipment could affect surface water. Such spills could also wash into nearby storm drains or infiltrate into soil affecting groundwater quality. However, the volume of material would not be significant; therefore runoff and groundwater pollution resulting from use of construction vehicles is considered minimal. Furthermore, implementation of standard construction procedures and precautions as discussed under Section 7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, would ensure that impacts related to construction vehicle pollutants would be less than significant.

The NPDES permit program under the Federal Clean Water Act controls water pollution by regulating point and nonpoint sources that discharge pollutants into “waters of the U.S.” Authority for NPDES permitting has been delegated by the federal government to the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which has nine regional boards; the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates water quality in the project area.

The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) is an association of thirteen cities and towns in the Santa Clara Valley (including Palo Alto), together with Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Program participants share a common permit to discharge stormwater to South San Francisco Bay. The RWQCB issued the SCVURPPP its first NPDES permit in 1990, and reissued the permit in 1995. In 2001, the SCVURPPP was reissued its third NPDES permit and provision C.3 of the permit was also revised to

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 63 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

address post-construction and some construction phase impacts of new and redevelopment projects on stormwater quality.

Provision C.3 calls for enhancement of the existing performance standard to increase the effectiveness of existing implementation, primarily by: 1) setting volume and flow based hydraulic sizing criteria for stormwater treatment measures; 2) setting minimum sizes of new development and redevelopment projects which must employ the treatment measures; 3) creation of a program to assure the adequate operation and maintenance of treatment measures occurs; 4) creation of standards for source control measures and site design measures which can lead to reduced impervious surface for a given equivalent land use; and 5) development of a process and criteria to limit changes in the runoff hydrograph for new and redevelopment, where those changes could have a harmful effect on downstream beneficial uses by excessive erosion of the bed and bank of downstream watercourses.

Stormwater discharges from construction activities on one acre or more are regulated by the RWQCB and are subject to the permitting requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Construction Permit). The General Construction Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction activities. As described in Section 6, Geology and Soils, above, the SWPPP must be prepared before the construction begins, and in certain cases, before demolition begins. The SWPPP must include specifications for BMPs that would need to be implemented during project construction. BMPs are measures that are undertaken to control degradation of surface water by preventing soil erosion or the discharge of pollutants from the construction area. The SWPPP must describe measures to prevent or control runoff after construction is complete and identify procedures for inspecting and maintaining facilities or other project elements.

The proposed project would disturb approximately 1.6 acres (DLM, 2009), exceeding the NPDES one-acre threshold; therefore, the PAUSD would be required to apply to the RWQCB for the General Construction Permit and comply with the SCVURPPP NPDES requirements that apply to “significant redevelopment” projects. Implementation of a SWPPP, as required by Mitigation Measure HYD-1, would ensure that the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure HYD-1: The PAUSD shall apply for coverage under the State General Construction Permit to comply with federal NPDES regulations. The NPDES and State General Construction Permit require a project applicant to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that identifies appropriate construction BMPs in order to minimize potential sedimentation or contamination of storm water runoff generated from the

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 64 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

project site. BMPs could include, without limitation, silt fences, gravel or sand bag berms, storm drain inlet protection, soil stockpile protection, preservation of existing vegetation, use of straw mulch, dust control, and others. The SWPPP shall also include any additional measures identified in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, as required. The project sponsor shall adhere to the identified BMPs as well as the waste discharge and stormwater requirements outlined in the permit.

b) Less than Significant. Preliminary geotechnical investigation of the project site indicated that the uppers soils are considered unsuitable for proposed building foundations and slabs and would require excavation and replacement with engineered fill to a depth of at least 3.0 feet below the ground surface (see Section 6, Geology and Soils). The water level was encountered in borings at depths of 25 to 30 feet. Therefore, the potential for intercepting groundwater and depleting groundwater supplies or recharge through excavation or subsurface foundations is considered to be low. Water supply to the City of Palo Alto is provided by the City Utilities Department through purchases from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Hetch Hetchy water supply system. The proposed project would not involve depletion of groundwater supplies; however, it would increase the amount of impervious surface area and thereby reduce the potential amount of groundwater recharge. As mentioned above, the proposed project would have to comply with the C.3 requirements, which include measures for reducing the amount of flow from off-site and using biofiltration improvements to the extent possible. Adherence to these requirements would reduce the amount of off-site runoff volumes and create a less than significant impact to groundwater supplies.

c, d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Proposed new structures and other improvements on the project site would not alter existing drainage patterns, nor would there be any alteration of the existing Santa Clara Valley Water District retention basin located on the western boundary of the campus. Although soil erosion could occur due to project construction, the resulting operational surface runoff rates would not significantly increase due to the generally flat topography of the project site and the relatively small net increase in impervious surface areas occurring during each individual phase of the Master Plan. The potential for accelerated runoff flow rates or flooding would be low. The use of BMPs and adherence to SWPPP and NPDES permit requirements as described in Mitigation Measure HYD-1, above, would reduce potential erosion and flooding impacts to a less than significant level. e) Less than Significant with Mitigation. As discussed above, the surface runoff rates resulting from operation of individual phases of the Master Plan would not significantly increase due to the generally flat topography of the project site and the relatively small net increase in impervious surface area. Stormwater runoff would flow from the project site into the City of Palo Alto’s stormwater drainage system, which would be adequate to handle any increase in flows resulting from the proposed project. In addition, stormwater treatment measures required as part of the

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 65 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

NPDES permit described above in Mitigation Measure HYD-1, including, but not limited to, vegetated swales, detention basins, and landscape infiltration systems, must be hydraulically sized to treat a specified amount of runoff, and they must include provisions to meet ongoing maintenance needs. Therefore, the project’s impact on the stormwater drainage system would be less than significant. f) Less than Significant with Mitigation. As discussed in a) and c) above, construction is the only phase of the proposed project that could affect water quality. Stormwater runoff would be controlled on-site using standard engineering practices and as required by Mitigation Measure HYD-1. Therefore, substantial degradation of water quality would not be expected and the proposed project’s impact would be less than significant. g, h) Less than Significant. According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps covering the project area, the Paly campus is located within Flood Zone X. This area is outside the 100-year flood zone; therefore, the impact would be considered less than significant. i) Less Than Significant. The 2003 Flood Inundation Maps prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water District indicated that the project site would not be subject to inundation in the event of a failure of the Stevens Creek Dam, Lexington Dam, Anderson Dam, Coyote Percolation Dam, Riconada T. W. Reservoir, or the Vasona Dam (Cleary, 2009). Therefore, the risk of inundation through failure of a levee or a dam would be less than significant at the project site. j) No Impact. Although tsunamis could occur and cause tidal surges in San Francisco Bay, these events are extremely rare and the project site is located sufficiently far enough away from the Bay shoreline that tsunamis would not impact the project site. The project site is outside of the runup zone resulting from a seismically generated tsumani with a 20-foot runup at the Golden Gate (Cleary, 2009).No water bodies large enough to cause a seiche are located in the vicinity of the project site. The potential for mudflows or landslides is discussed under Section 6, Geology and Soils. No impact would occur due to inundation of seiche or tsunami.

Sources City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan Update, 1996. City of Palo Alto, Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report, Comprehensive Plan Update, 1996. Cleary Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Investigations, Campus Improvements-Group 2, Palo Alto High School, July 30, 2009. Deems Lewis McKinley, Palo Alto High School, Site Perviousness, 2009. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Santa Clara County, Map Numbers 06085C0010H, 06085C0016H, and 06085C0017H, May 18, 2009.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 66 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, www.scvurppp- wk2.com, accessed July 14, 2009.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 67 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

9. Land Use and Planning Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

Setting The Paly campus is located on an approximately 44-acre site southeast of the El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road intersection. The campus is owned and occupied by the PAUSD, but the site has a reversionary clause to Stanford University on 26 acres. Original construction began in 1918 and approximately 17 buildings currently exist on the campus. Adjacent land uses include residential areas to the east and southeast, Stanford University to the west, and the Town and Country Village shopping center to the north.

Local Plans and Policies The following policies from the Land Use and Community Design Element and the Community Services and Facilities Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan are relevant to the proposed project:

Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-61: Promote the use of community and cultural centers, libraries, local schools, parks, and other community facilities as gathering places. Ensure that they are inviting and safe places that can deliver a variety of community services during both daytime and evening hours. Policy L-71: Strengthen the identity of important community gateways, including entrances to the City at … Embarcadero Road at El Camino Real. Policy C-4: Maintain a close, collaborative relationship with the PAUSD to maximize the use of school services and facilities for public benefit, particularly for young people, families, and seniors.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 68 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Policy C-5: Recognize the importance of schools to the social and economic vitality of the City. Policy C-6: Continue and enhance City efforts to assist PAUSD in anticipating and addressing land development-related school enrollment impacts.

The General Plan designates the project site as School District Lands. This land use designation applies to properties owned or leased by public school districts and used for educational, recreational, or other non-commercial, non-industrial purposes. Floor area ratio may not exceed 1.0. The campus is zoned PF-Public Facilities, which is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities.

The California Constitution (Article 9, Section 6), prohibits the PAUSD, as a component of the state’s public school system, from being placed under the jurisdiction of a local government. Therefore, PAUSD is exempt from the requirement to comply with local land use controls, including local general plans and zoning ordinances, within the District’s boundaries. However, the PAUSD attempts to ensure its Master Plan is compatible with the goals and policies of the City of Palo Alto to the extent feasible. Goals of the Master Plan are listed below:

• Give organization and structure to the campus • Create a hierarchy of open space • Utilize in-between spaces—preserve open space • Create edges to open space and buildings • Define and articulate building entries • Provide growth strategies—consolidate departmental functions

Discussion a, b) Less Than Significant. The land uses proposed as part of the Master Plan would represent a continuation of established public education land uses that have existed on the project site for several decades. The project therefore would not deviate from established development patterns on the project site or in their vicinity. New development would be designed in keeping with the predominant styles of the existing campus architecture. As such, the new uses proposed as part of the project would be consistent with, and would represent an enhancement of, existing educational uses on the Paly campus.

While the proposed Master Plan would represent changes to the existing campus, the proposed project would not cause a significant adverse land use impact. Furthermore, all potential physical environmental effects of the proposed project on adjacent land uses during construction (including traffic, noise, air quality) are addressed and mitigated where required to the extent feasible throughout this environmental document.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 69 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

The campus improvements and educational uses proposed as part of the project would not substantially conflict with the goals and policies in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Moreover, although not bound by local land use ordinances, project components proposed by the PAUSD would nonetheless be consistent with the land use designation and zoning for the campus.

Moreover, the project would require review and approval by Board of Education and would be required to meet design criteria established by the Department of General Services, Division of the State Architect, which is responsible for review of the architectural plans and construction documents.

In conclusion, the proposed project would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangements of existing uses and activities that surround them, nor would the proposed physical changes displace any businesses, residences, or other uses. Therefore, land use impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. c) No Impact. As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan exist within the project boundaries.

Sources City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan Update, 1996.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 70 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

10. Mineral Resources Would the project: 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? 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?

Discussion a, b) No Impact. According to the Santa Clara County General Plan, the project site does not contain any known mineral resources. No impact would result.

Sources Santa Clara County, General Plan 1995-2010, adopted December 20, 1994.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 71 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

11. Noise Would the project result in: a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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? 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?

Discussion a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The California Department of Education (CDE) requires all school districts to select school sites that provide safety and support learning.13 Because the CDE recognizes that unwanted sound can be distracting and can present an obstacle to learning, the CDE requires school districts to consider noise in the site selection process.14 The School Site Selection and Approval Guide document recommends that this be accomplished with an assessment of noise from major roadways and railroads during environmental review of school construction.15 If PAUSD considers a potential school site near a freeway or other source of noise, CDE recommends hiring an acoustical engineer to determine the level of sound that the location is subjected to and to assist in designing the school. The American Speech Language-Hearing Association (ASLHA) guidelines recommend that in classrooms, sounds dissipate in 0.4 seconds or less (and not reverberate) and that background noise not rise above 30 dBA.16 While PAUSD has not adopted any specific interior noise standard for its

13 California Department of Education (CDE), Regulations (CCR Tit. 5, Div. 1, Ch. 13 Subchapter 1, Article 2 §14010 “Standards for School Site Selection”) 14 CDE Regulations (CCR Tit. 5, Div. 1, Ch. 13 §14010(q)). 15 CDE, School Facilities Planning Division, School Site Selection and Approval Guide, March, 2001. 16 Ibid.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 72 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

classrooms, other districts, such as Los Angeles Unified have adopted an interior standard of 45 dBA.

Long-term (24-hour) noise monitoring was conducted at two locations on the Paly campus to determine the existing noise environment of proposed locations of new classrooms.

The first location monitored was the location of the proposed Group 2, two-story 27-room classroom building. Noise sources in this area are dominated by vehicle traffic on Alma Street, which is approximately 200 feet from the eastern building façade and intermittent train pass-by events on the Caltrain tracks that are approximately 130 feet from the eastern building façade. Daytime hourly average noise levels at this location ranged from 60 to 67 dBA with a (logarithmic) average of 64 dBA. Maximum (instantaneous) noise levels during train pass-by events ranged from 80 to 88 dBA, depending on the direction of the train.

The second location monitored was the location of the proposed Group 2, Media Arts Center. Noise sources in this area are dominated by vehicle traffic on Embarcadero Road, which is approximately 110 feet from the northern building façade and intermittent train pass-by events on the Caltrain tracks that are approximately 260 feet from the eastern building façade. Daytime hourly average noise levels at this location ranged from 60 to 64 dBA with a (logarithmic) average of 61 dBA. Maximum (instantaneous) noise levels during train pass-by events ranged from 75 to 80 dBA, depending on the direction of the train.

Standard building construction methods typically result in a exterior to interior noise reduction of 15 to 20 dBA (HUD, 2004), which would be insufficient to meet the recommended goals of the ASLHA or the generally accepted 45 dBA standard for interior residential spaces. Consequently, these two classroom buildings would need to be designed to incorporate sound insulation sufficient to maintain interior noise levels appropriate for a classroom.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The PAUSD shall collaborate with a certified acoustical engineer to assist in design and verification of noise insulation measures for the classrooms proposed under the Master Plan. b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. In discussing whether the project would expose people to severe noise via airborne or ground-borne vibrations, this analysis examines the impact of construction and operational activities associated with the project on the existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site as well as the impact of the existing vibration environment on the future occupants of project classrooms.

Ground-borne vibration from activities that involve “impact tools,” especially pile driving could produce significant vibration. It is unknown, at the Master Plan level,

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 73 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

whether pile driving would be required for two-story classroom buildings to meet seismic code. Pile driving can result in typical peak particle velocities (PPV) of 0.64 inches per second at a distance of 25 feet, which would exceed the criteria published by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) of 0.2 inches per second for the protection of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings and 0.3 inches per second for concrete and masonry buildings with no plaster. Distances of 55 and 42 feet are required for the attenuation of pile driving vibrations to below these respective building protection thresholds. The nearest existing buildings to the proposed building locations are adjacent language classrooms, approximately 30 feet away. The nearest residences would be located over 200 feet away from the proposed building locations and would not be susceptible to building damage from pile driving activity. Consequently, the potential for adjacent building damage would be a concern at the nearest adjacent classrooms if installation of piles were a necessary construction method and mitigation measures are recommended.

Vibration levels can also result in interference or annoyance impacts to residences or other land uses where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. Vibration annoyance impact criteria published by U.S. DOT relative to daytime residential land uses (the most applicable use listed to a classroom) are established in terms of vibration decibels (VdB). VdBs are generally used when evaluating human response to vibrations, as opposed to structural damage, where PPV is the more commonly used descriptor. Vibration decibels are established relative to a reference quantity, typically 1 x 10-6 inches per second.17

The criterion for vibration annoyance established by U.S. DOT for daytime residential uses (again, the most applicable use listed to a classroom) is 78 VdB. Pile driving can result in typical vibrations of 104 Vdb at a distance of 25 feet. The residence nearest to the proposed two-story classrooms would be located approximately 20 feet away at which distance vibrations from pile driving activities would be reduced to 77 Vdb. This would be a less than significant vibration impact to the nearest residences. However, annoyance impacts would be a concern at the nearest adjacent classrooms if installation of piles were a necessary construction method and mitigation measures are recommended.

Operational Vibration Impacts from Caltrain The proposed two-story 27-room classroom building and the proposed Media Arts Center would be located 130 feet and 260 feet, respectively, from active railroad tracks operated by Caltrain. Based on the published Caltrain schedule (dated March 2, 2009), 98 Caltrain passenger train pass the site each weekday. Survey of monitored vibration levels adjacent to the Caltrain tracks undertaken for the City of San Carlos in 2006 indicates that peak vibration levels monitored at a distance of 65 feet from the southbound track and 80 feet from the northbound track were recorded to be 72 Vdb (Illingworth and Rodkin, 2006). This would be a less than

17 Ibid.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 74 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

significant vibration annoyance impact to the nearest classrooms, which are located twice this distance from the tracks. Consequently, annoyance impacts to students at the propose classrooms nearest the Caltrain tracks would be less than significant. To reduce potential structural damage impacts from pile driving (if necessary) on nearby existing and/or future buildings, PAUSD shall implement Mitigation Measures NOI-2 and NOI-3:

Mitigation Measure NOI-2: • Verify the construction method of adjacent buildings of concern. If buildings are constructed of reinforced concrete, steel or timber without plaster, these structures can withstand vibrations of up to 0.5 PPV without structural damage. If located at a distance of at least 30 feet from pile locations potential structural impacts would be considered less than significant.

• Use alternative driving methods. If adjacent buildings are non- engineered timber and masonry buildings or concrete and masonry buildings with no plaster then alternative driving methods may be employed to reduce vibration impacts to a less than significant level. Use of a sonic (or vibratory) pile driver can result in typical vibration levels being reduced from 0.644 feet per second to 0.170 feet per second (U.S. DOT, 2006). Alternatively pile holes may be pre-drilled to reduce vibrations.

Mitigation Measure NOI-3: To reduce the potential for annoyance impacts from pile driving (if necessary) at occupied adjacent classrooms, PAUSD shall have the contractor schedule any pile driving activities during the summer or winter breaks or other times when classrooms within a 150-foot radius are unoccupied. Additionally, any required pile driving should be restricted to daytime hours. c) Less Than Significant. Future development of the site could generate noise from motor vehicle trips as well as from stationary sources (i.e., HVAC equipment etc.) that could adversely affect nearby noise-sensitive land uses.

Noise from air handling equipment would be located more than 200 feet away from the nearest sensitive receptor and would be no different than the existing equipment located on campus buildings. Given the presence of other noise sources between the site and the nearest residential receptors (Caltrain and Alma Street), noise from air handling equipment would not represent a significant noise impact.

Noise level projections from roadway traffic increases were made using traffic data and the TNM version 2.5 Lookup Noise Prediction Model of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for those road segments that would experience the greatest increase in traffic volumes and/or that would pass nearest to residential areas. The

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 75 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

model is based on the TNM reference noise factors for automobiles, medium trucks, heavy trucks, and buses with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, and distance to the receiver.

The results of the modeling are shown in Table 2 for existing, existing plus project and 2018 plus project scenarios. The traffic analysis indicates that the proposed project would generate approximately 886 total daily vehicle trips. This traffic would be distributed over the local street network and would affect roadside noise levels. For the modeling effort, a.m. peak hour traffic volumes during weekdays were used as a worst-case analysis because the proposed project would contribute more traffic to the a.m. peak hour than to the a.m. peak hour. Modeled existing noise levels shown in Table 2 correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of applicable roadway segments.

TABLE 2 TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASES IN ROADSIDE LEQ

Modeled Cumulative Modeled Incremental Increase Contribution of Cumulative Year 2009 vs 2018 Existing + Proposed 2018 with with Proposed Road Segment Existing Project Project Proposed Project Project)

1. Embarcadero Road (between Kingsley 62.9 63.1 0.2 64.2 1.3 Avenue and Paly Driveway)

2. El Camino Real (between Churchill 69.3 69.3 0.0 70.1 0.8 Avenue and Embarcadero Road)

3. Churchill Avenue (between Paly 59.8 59.9 0.1 60.0 0.2 Driveway and El Camino Real)

4. Churchill Avenue (between Emerson 57.1 57.2 0.1 59.4 1.3 Street and Alma Street)

5 Alma Street (between Kellogg Avenue and 68.7 68.7 0.0 67.5 - 1.2b Churchill Avenue)

6. Alma Street (between Coleridge Avenue and 69.4 69.4 0.0 68.7 - 0.7b Churchill Avenue)

a These listed values represent the modeled existing noise levels from mobile sources along specified roadways and are based on traffic data. Road center to receptor distance is assumed to be 50 feet. The speed limit for these segments is assumed to be 25 miles per hour except foe El Camino Real and Alma Streets for which the assumed speed was 35 miles per hour. b A decrease in noise is predicted at these segments because traffic projections predict a decrease in northbound roadway volumes by 2018.

SOURCE: ESA, 2009.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 76 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

As can be seen from the data in Table 2, roadway traffic noise increases resulting from the proposed project would be less than 1 dBA. Generally, even in a laboratory environment, increases of less than 1 dBA are too small to be detected by the human ear (Caltrans, 1998). Consequently, increases in roadway noise resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Noise standards are typically addressed in Title 24, local General Plan policies and local noise ordinance standards. The City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.060 of the Municipal Code) establishes construction noise regulations in the City. The noise ordinance restricts the allowable hours for construction to between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. Construction may occur on weekends between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction activities are prohibited on Sundays and holidays. In addition, no individual pieces of construction equipment are allowed to exceed 110 dBA at a distance of 25 feet.

Construction of future buildings would involve demolition of some existing structures at the site and the construction of one and two-story classrooms, renovations of existing buildings and improvements to athletic fields involving earthwork. Various types of equipment would be used for demolition and construction purposes. Some of this equipment would generate relatively steady- state noise levels, such as the noise from diesel engines, and other equipment would generate impulse or impact noise.

Construction noise levels at and near locations on the project site would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of various types of construction equipment. The effect of construction noise depends upon how much noise would be generated by construction, the distance between construction activities and the nearest noise-sensitive uses, and the existing noise levels at those uses.

Table 3 shows typical noise levels generated by construction equipment. As shown in Table 3, the noisiest phases of (non-pile driving) construction would generate approximately 88 Leq at 50 feet. Pile driving, if necessary, would generate noise levels of approximately 101 dBA at 50 feet. All of these construction equipment noise levels would be consistent with the restriction of the City’s municipal code.

The receptors nearest to the proposed construction activities would be adjacent classrooms. The nearest residences to proposed construction activities would be located 200 feet from the proposed two-story classroom, across Alma Street and residences across Churchill Avenue, approximately 120 feet from proposed earthwork for renovation of the baseball and softball fields.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 77 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

TABLE 3 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE EMISSION LEVELS

Equipment a Noise Level (Leq)

Shovel (Excavator) 82 Back Hoe 80 Concrete pumps 82 Jack Hammer 88 Pneumatic tools 85 Truck 88 Pile Driving 101

a Estimates correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the piece of equipment.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.

While construction-related noise would be within the limits established by the City’s noise ordinance, construction noise could be a nuisance to the nearest sensitive receptors. Consequently, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce noise impacts of project construction on adjacent sensitive receptors.

Mitigation Measure NOI-4: Construction contractors shall be required to follow appropriate time restrictions consistent with the City’s Municipal Code. Specifically, it is recommended that contractors be required to limit noisy construction activities, including related on-road truck use in the immediate project vicinity, to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. No construction shall be allowed on Sundays and legal holidays. In addition, although not required, it is recommended that the use of impact tools (e.g., hoe-ram, jackhammers, pile driver) be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Construction Related Noise Attenuation Measures • Notify adjacent residents of any planned pile-driving activities, as well as any particularly noisy activity that would affect them for a given short period of time so they can plan their activities accordingly.

• Ensure that all diesel equipment is equipped with effective mufflers, in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, and that the mufflers are in good repair.

• Use temporary noise barriers along the perimeter of the sites, to the maximum extent feasible during demolition and grading activities.

• Locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as generators and compressors as far as possible from the nearest residential property line.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 78 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

• Locate any construction trailers or offices as far from the adjacent residential uses as possible.

Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant levels. e, f) No Impact. There are no public use airports or private air strips within a two mile radius of the project site. Consequently, there are no noise or vibration impacts associated with these uses that would occur on the project site.

Sources Illingworth and Rodkin, San Carlos Train Depot Site, Noise and Vibration Assessment San Carlos, California, August 8, 2006. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Traffic Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development, The Noise Guidebook, updated, August, 2004.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 79 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

12. Population and Housing Would the project: 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Discussion a) Less than Significant. As described in the Project Description, the purpose of the proposed project is to renovate existing aging facilities, and to provide additional building capacity, as well as various infrastructure and site access/circulation/landscaping upgrades consistent with the Master Plan. Student enrollment is anticipated to incrementally increase within the PAUSD over the time period of the Master Plan buildout in 2017. However, the proposed project would not, in itself, induce student growth within the PAUSD, but rather, better accommodate existing and planned student enrollment within the PAUSD. Furthermore, utility infrastructure improvements are intended to improve utility service at the project site, and would not be oversized to potentially serve additional growth within the area. b, c) Less than Significant. The proposed project would not displace any existing housing or generate a demand for housing elsewhere. Furthermore, the project would not result in a displacement of people from the project site. No impact would result.

Sources PAUSD, Palo Alto High School Master Plan, 2009. Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc., Enrollment Forecasts for PAUSD Middle and High Schools, January 12, 2009.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 80 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

13. Public Services Would the project: a) Result 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? – See Section 14 Other public facilities?

Setting Fire Protection Services Fire protection services to the project site are provided by the City of Palo Alto Fire Department. The Fire Department has approximately 122 employees and staffs seven full-time stations located throughout the City and on the Stanford University campus. To provide coverage in the sparsely developed hillside areas, an additional fire station in the foothills is operated during summer months when fire danger is high. Service areas for the Fire Department include the Stanford University campus, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), and unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. The nearest fire station to the Paly campus is Fire Station No. 1 at 301 Alma Street, which is approximately one-mile from the campus. The City also has mutual aid agreements with Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, and Woodside.

In fiscal year 2007-08, the Fire Department responded to an average of 21 calls per day. The average response time for fire calls was 6 minutes 48 seconds, and the average response time for medical/rescue calls was 5 minutes 24 seconds. There were more than 4,500 medical/rescue incidents and 192 fire incidents (including 43 residential structure fires) in 2007-2008. The Fire Department also performed 1,277 fire inspections and 406 hazardous materials inspections.

Police Protection Services Law enforcement services to the project site are provided by the Palo Alto Police Department. The Police Department has 169 personnel; it shares Special Weapons and Tactical (SWAT) Teams with Los Altos and Mountain View and provides dispatching to the Stanford University Police through the City’s Communications Center.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 81 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

The Police Department handled more than 58,700 calls for service in fiscal year 2007-08, or about 161 calls per day. The average response time for emergency calls is 4 minutes 32 seconds. Police Department statistics show 127 reported crimes per 1,000 residents, with 87 reported crimes per officer last year. The Police Department is located at 275 Forest Avenue, approximately one-mile from the Paly campus.

Public Schools The PAUSD attendance area includes the City of Palo Alto, Stanford University, and areas of Los Altos Hills, Palo Alto Hills, and Portola Valley. The PAUSD consists of twelve elementary schools (grades K-5), three middle schools (6-8), and two high schools (9-12). In addition, the District operates a pre-school, Young Fives program, a self- supporting Adult School, the Hospital School at Stanford’s Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital, and summer school. The total District enrollment for the 2008/2009 school year is 11,431.

Discussion a.i-ii) Less than Significant. The proposed project would result in construction of new buildings and other site improvements to accommodate anticipated enrollment increases through buildout of the Master Plan in 2017. While no off-site access improvements are proposed, parking and drop-off areas would be reconfigured as part of the project to improve vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation and safety on the campus. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable requirements of the California Fire Code, and be consistent with the California Building Code regarding life safety issues, including emergency vehicle access. In addition, during the construction document phase, all plans would be subject to review and approval by the Division of State Architect for a fire and life- safety compliance review. In consideration of these factors, the proposed project would not adversely affect the ability of the Palo Alto Fire and Police Departments to maintain adequate fire and police protection services, or result in the need for expanded public services that would result in the need for a new or expanded facilities. a.iii) No Impact. There are no elements of the proposed project that would adversely affect public schools. Consequently, no impact is anticipated. a.iv) Less than Significant. Refer to Section 14, Recreation, for a discussion of the need for additional park and recreational facilities, and the potential environmental impacts associated with the provision of new facilities. a.v) Less than Significant. The proposed project would not adversely affect any other public services in the City of Palo Alto.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 82 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Sources City of Palo Alto, City Auditor, Annual Report on City Government Performance, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report FY 2007-2008, Summary, January 2009. City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan Update, 1996. City of Palo Alto, Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report, Comprehensive Plan Update, 1996. City of Palo Alto, Fire Department, www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/fir/news, accessed July 22, 2009. City of Palo Alto, Police Department, www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pol/news, accessed July 22, 2009.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 83 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

14. Recreation Would the project: 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? 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?

Setting The City of Palo Alto owns and operates 28 neighborhood and district parks totaling approximately 190 acres. They range in size from one-half to two-acre mini-parks to “district” parks that serve the entire community and feature playing fields, picnic grounds, and community centers. Many parks feature specialized facilities such as tennis courts, basketball courts, skate bowls, community gardens, dog exercise areas, and par courses. The City also owns and operates several large open space preserves such as Foothills Park. The Recreation Division provides numerous programs, classes, and special events. Recreation facilities include community centers, pools (including the new Gunn High School Aquatic Center), and a teen center. The City also maintains PAUSD athletic fields and tennis courts at all elementary and middle school sites and manages public use of those facilities. The City of Palo Alto brokers all city athletic fields, tennis courts and Palo Alto Unified School District school fields. Park Services also maintains school athletic fields and tennis courts at all elementary and middle school sites. Parks in the vicinity of Gunn High School include Bol, Briones, and Terman Parks.

Discussion a, b) Less than Significant. Implementation of the proposed project over buildout of the Master Plan in 2017 and associated incremental increase in student population at the project site would not substantially increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks in the vicinity or cause substantial physical deterioration of those facilities.

Construction of the new gymnasium is proposed to occur in the area currently occupied by tennis and basketball courts. Some or all of these facilities would be temporarily disrupted during construction of the new gym. Approximately 45 other tennis courts located at other schools and parks throughout the City of Palo Alto (including four at nearby Terman Park) would be available for use by the public during the closure of Gunn’s courts. New tennis and basketball courts would be constructed in areas adjacent to the new gym. Any potential environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of these recreational facilities are

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 84 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

discussed in this environmental document and mitigated to a less than significant level.

Sources City of Palo Alto, Community Services Department, www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/csd, accessed July 22, 2009. City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan Update, 1996. City of Palo Alto, Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report, Comprehensive Plan Update, 1996.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 85 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

15. Transportation/Traffic Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to- capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Setting Palo Alto High School is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of El Camino Real (State Route (SR) 82) and Embarcadero Road. The school has three primary entrances/exits, one from El Camino Real, one from Embarcadero road, and one from Churchill Avenue. The three entrances are currently controlled with stops signs on the driveway approaches.18

The driveway from Embarcadero Road includes left- and right-turn (eastbound and westbound) ingress from Embarcadero Road, but only right-turn egress to eastbound Embarcadero Road. This would change with signalization of the driveway, which as planned, includes left- and right-turn access to and from Embarcadero Road.

Pedestrian and bicycle access from Embarcadero Road is provided with a signal controlled crosswalk approximately 200 feet easterly of the school driveway. The crosswalk effectively links the school with the shopping center and areas to the northeast, and currently accommodates a large volume of both pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

Vehicle traffic currently backs up on Churchill Avenue during the morning peak hour, particularly in the westbound direction behind the traffic light at El Camino Real. The

18 The driveway at Embarcadero Road, which aligns with the Town and Country Shopping Center, is schedule to be signalized with the next year as part of the new Trader Joe’s project.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 86 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

driveway to Embarcadero Road is congested during student arrival and departure periods. Vehicle use of the El Camino Real driveway is limited to right-turns in and out.

Existing Traffic Volumes and Intersection Lane Configurations Five study intersections that would be most affected by project traffic were selected for analysis:

1. El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road 2. Embarcadero Road and School Driveway 3. El Camino Real and Churchill Avenue 4. Churchill Avenue and Alma Street 5. Churchill Avenue and School Driveway

The study intersections were analyzed during weekday a.m. peak-hour traffic conditions. Peak traffic conditions, which would coincide with school traffic, typically occur during the morning commute periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.). Intersection operations were evaluated for the one hour during the morning peak period for which the highest traffic volumes were measured.

Vehicle counts at the driveways were conducted at the start and end of the school day on a Friday in March (March 13, 2009). The counts included inbound and outbound vehicles, as well as count of parked cars by location.

Morning drop-offs and afternoon pick-ups are part of the student commute. A total of 467 drop-offs occurred during the count period. Of these approximately 49 percent (228 drop- offs) were in front of the Haymarket Theatre, 17 percent (80 drop-offs) were in front of the tower building, and 34 percent (159 drop-offs) occurred at the end of the driveway from Churchill Avenue.19 The primary issue during drop-offs in the morning is the number of vehicles attempting to leave the site during the 20-minute morning peak through the Embarcadero Road driveway, as there are limited queuing and stacking lanes.

Parking at the high school is currently concentrated in three locations as shown in Figure 12. The school has a total of 555 parking spaces. Lots A, B, C, D, and E, with a total of 295 parking spaces are located in the northwest corner of the school site. Lot F (a combination of two smaller lots) with 57 parking spaces is located in the northeast corner. Lots G, H, I, and K, with a total of 203 parking spaces, are located in the southern portion of the school property with access from Churchill Avenue.

Parking demand at the high school fluctuates very little over the course of the day, but generally, the lots in close proximity to the campus buildings (Lots A, C, E, F, G, and H) operate close to capacity, and the more remote lots (lots B, D, I, and K) typically have parking spaces available. Lot D can have upwards of 100 empty spaces during the day, while Lot I, near Churchill Avenue, can have 20 to 40 empty parking spaces. As a whole,

19 This does not include students dropped off on side streets or in the Town and Country Shopping Center.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 87 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

the high school has a peak parking demand of approximately 416 parking spaces (75 percent).

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 88 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Palo Alto High School Master Plan . 209002 SOURCE: Wilson (2009). Merci. LL Figure 12 AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes and Parking Count Summaries Initial Study

Existing Intersection Operations The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term Level of Service. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, as the best operating conditions, to LOS F, or the worst operating conditions. LOS E represents “at-capacity” operations. When volumes exceed capacity, stop-and-go conditions result, and operations are designated as LOS F.

Level of Service Calculation Method. The LOS calculation methodology for intersections is dependent on the type of traffic control device, traffic signals or stop signs. The LOS methodology used in this analysis bases a signalized intersection’s operation on the average control delay calculated using methods described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). The average delay for signalized intersections was calculated using TRAFFIX analysis software and is correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 4. The LOS standard (i.e., minimum acceptable operations) for the City of Palo Alto is LOS D.

TABLE 4 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS

Average Control Delay Level of Per Vehicle Service (Seconds) Description

Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression A ≤ 10.0 and/or short cycle length. Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short B 10.1 to 20.0 cycle lengths. Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or C 20.1 to 35.0 longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable D 35.1 to 55.0 progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle E 55.1 to 80.0 lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to F > 80.0 over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.

SOURCE: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.

Intersection LOS calculations were conducted at the unsignalized intersection using the methodologies for two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersections contained in Chapter 17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The LOS rating is based on the control delay for the stop-controlled movement expressed in seconds per vehicle. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Table 5 presents the range of average control delay that corresponds

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 90 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

to each LOS designation. The control delay was calculated using the TRAFFIX analysis software.

TABLE 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Average Control Level of Delay Per Vehicle Service (Seconds) Description

A ≤ 10.0 Little or no delay B 10.1 to 15.0 Short Traffic delays C 15.1 to 25.0 Average traffic delays D 25.1 to 35.0 Long traffic delays E 35.1 to 50.0 Very long traffic delays F > 50.0 Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded

SOURCE: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.

Existing Intersection Levels of Service. The existing lane configurations, signal phasing, and peak-hour turning movement volumes were used to calculate the LOS for the study intersections. The results of the LOS analysis are presented in Table 6. All of the study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels.

TABLE 6 EXISTING INTERSECTION AM PEAK-HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS) ANDAVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY (SECONDS/VEHICLE)a

Existing Control Intersection Typeb Delayc LOS

El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road Signal 43.9 D Embarcadero Road and School Driveway Signal 9.4 A El Camino Real and Churchill Avenue Signal 22.8 C Churchill Avenue and Alma Street Signal 35.0 C Churchill Avenue and School Driveway TWSC 22.1 C

a LOS calculations performed for using TRAFFIX and the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual operations analysis methodology. b TWSC = Two-way stop (sign) controlled c Represents overall intersection delay for signalized intersections, worst-case controlled movement delay for minor street stop intersection.

SOURCE: Wilson (2009).

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. The existing school site currently contains pedestrian facilities. School route crosswalks exist on Embarcadero Road north of the driveway and at the intersection of Churchill and Castilleja Avenues.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 91 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. Bike paths are paved trails that are separated from the roadways. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways that are designated for use by bicycles by striping, pavement legends, and signs. Bike routes are roadways that are designated for bicycle use with signs, but no separate lane width. Within the vicinity of the project site, there are bike lanes on Churchill Avenue between Bryant Street and El Camino Real. In addition, bicycles are allowed in paved path within the Caltrain right-of-way.

Bicycle counts were conducted at the start and end of the school day on a Friday in March (March 13, 2009). The counts included both inbound and outbound bicycles by location, as well as count of parked bicycles by location.20

Bicycle counts, illustrated in Figure 13, reveal that approximately 410 students bicycle to school. Approximately 39 percent (161 students) entered from Churchill and Castilleja Avenues, 32 percent (129 students) from the signalized crossing at Embarcadero Road, 12 percent (50 students) from the intersection of El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road, and 17 percent (71 students from the northeast corner of the campus at the Caltrain tracks above Embarcadero Road. Outbound bicycle traffic in the afternoon is more dispersed over time, as students depart over an extended time period; however, the direction of departures is more or less the reverse from the morning arrivals.

By comparison, counts conducted by the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) on a warmer day, have documented upwards of 520 students bicycling to school, roughly 27 percent more than was counted in March.

Bike cages are generally located at three points in the central area of the campus, including near the gym, near the science building, and near the student center.

Transit Facilities Bus service in Santa Clara County is operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Commuter rail service (Caltrain) is provided from San Francisco to Gilroy by the Peninsula Joint Powers Board.

Route 22 is a local bus route that provides service between the Eastridge neighborhood in San Jose and Palo Alto/Menlo Park 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It operates on El Camino Real along the project frontage.

The Embarcadero Shuttle is a free service that operates Monday through Friday. The shuttle runs every 15 minutes during commute hours and is coordinated with the Caltrain schedule. It serves employers in the Embarcadero/Baylands area, residents in the Embarcadero Road corridor and students at Palo Alto High School. It operates on Embarcadero Road along the project frontage.

20 It should be noted that both vehicle and bicycle counts represent a worst-case scenario as the weather was cold in March. Mode-shift would occur as weather improves (i.e., more bicycling and walking would occur on a warm day).

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 92 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Palo Alto High School Master Plan . 209002 SOURCE: Wilson (2009). Merci. LL Figure 13 Bicycles and AM/PM Peak Period Pickup/Dropoff Volumes Initial Study

Discussion a, b) Less than Significant. Implementation of the proposed project over buildout of the Master Plan in 2017 and associated incremental increase in student population at the project site would increase trips to the high school. The vehicle trip generation for the proposed project is presented in Table 7. Vehicle trip generation for the proposed improvements was estimated based on trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (8th edition). The proposed high school expansion is estimated to generate approximately 138 net new morning vehicle trips (95 inbound and 43 outbound) at the school driveways.

TABLE 7 AM PEAK HOUR TRIP FORECAST

Existing Student Forecast 2018 Net Inbound/ Population Student Population Net Increase in Tripsa Outbound Trips

1,773 2,291 138 95/43

a Trip generation was based on the trip generation rates published in ITE Trip Generation, 8th edition.

SOURCE: Wilson, 2009; ITE, 2008.

The vehicle trip distribution pattern for the proposed project was estimated based on the existing travel patterns of students and faculty from the traffic counts conducted in March 2009.

Project Conditions Project conditions are defined as existing conditions plus traffic added by the proposed project. Project impacts are then identified by comparing the LOS results under project conditions to those under existing conditions.

The results of the LOS analysis for project conditions are summarized in Table 8; turning movement counts and LOS calculations are on-file at the District offices. With the addition of project-generated traffic, the study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the a.m. peak hour. Therefore, it is considered a less than significant impact.

Cumulative Conditions Cumulative Conditions includes estimated volumes based on forecasts of the Year 2018 baseline traffic volumes. The Year 2018 baseline conditions were developed using the City of Palo Alto’s traffic forecasts for the years 2010, 2013, and 2015 with a pro rata increase to 2018.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 94 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

TABLE 8 EXISTING AND FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS) AND AVERAGE VEHICLE DEALY (seconds/vehicles)a

Control Existing Project Cumulative w/Project

Intersection Typeb Delayc LOS Delayc LOS Delayc LOS

AM Peak Hour El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road Signal 43.9 D 43.9 D 48.4 D Embarcadero Road and School Driveway Signal 9.4 A 9.7 A 10.5 B El Camino Real and Churchill Avenue Signal 22.8 C 22.9 C 22.8 C Churchill Avenue and Alma Street Signal 35.0 C 35.9 D 43.0 D Churchill Avenue and School Driveway TWSC 22.1 C 24.9 C 30.9 D

SOURCE: Wilson (2009)

Peak-hour levels of service at the study intersections for Cumulative Conditions are summarized in Table 8. Under Cumulative Conditions, the delay will increase at the study intersection, but will continue to operate at acceptable levels during the a.m. peak hour. Therefore, the project’s impact to Cumulative Conditions would be less than significant.

Construction Period Construction of the proposed modifications to the school is anticipated to commence in summer 2010, and would be conducted in phases. Construction activities that would generate off-site traffic would include the initial delivery of construction vehicles and equipment to the project site, the daily arrival and departure of construction workers, and the delivery of materials throughout the construction period, and removal of construction debris. Deliveries would include shipments of concrete, lumber, and other building materials for on-site structures, utilities (e.g., irrigation and plumbing equipment, electrical supplies) and paving and landscaping materials.

Construction-generated traffic would be temporary, and therefore, would not result in any long-term degradation in operating conditions on any project roadways. The impact of construction-related traffic would be a temporary and intermittent lessening of the capacities of project area streets because of the slower movements and larger turning radii of construction trucks compared to passenger vehicles. However, given the proximity of the project site to major arterials (Embarcadero Road, Churchill Avenue) and to El Camino Real, construction trucks would have relatively easy and direct routes. Most construction traffic would be dispersed

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 95 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

throughout the day. Thus, the temporary increase would not significantly disrupt daily traffic flow on any of the study area roadways.

Although the impact would be less than significant, truck traffic could have some adverse effect on traffic flow in the study area. As such, the transport of construction materials and equipment should be limited to off-peak traffic periods. This measure should be incorporated by the school district into the contract specifications documents to ensure implementation by the construction contractor(s).

c) No Impact. The proposed school would not change air traffic patterns, increase air traffic levels or result in a change in location that would result in substantial safety risks. There would be no project effect. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The project would result in an increase in vehicle trips, as well as an increase in pedestrian traffic within the project site and on local roadways, and correspondingly, would increase the potential for interaction between these travel modes.

Sidewalks currently exist on roadways adjacent to the project site. To further improve pedestrian circulation, pedestrian walkways would be enhanced from the sidewalk and all passenger loading/unloading zones to the main entrance to the campus site.

Bicycle access to the high school would increase as student population increases. Assuming the same rate of bicycle use as observed in the March 2009 counts, the projected number of cyclists at buildout of the Master Plan would be approximately 540. The high school would continue to encourage bicycling to campus as part of their Transportation Demand Management program, and thus would provide adequate and secure bicycle parking, in the form of bicycle cages, at convenient and commute entrances.

Circulation and parking aisles at the high school would continue to serve both one- way and two-way traffic and provide both angled and perpendicular parking spaces. The aisles would be designed to be wide enough for maneuvering all types of passenger vehicles.

Based on the residential distribution of existing students and transit routes, the school would generate pedestrian traffic through the neighborhood and along roadways that front the school property. The existing sidewalks on all street frontages would accommodate the pedestrian traffic.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 would reduce on- site circulation impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 96 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Mitigation Measure TRAN-1: PAUSD shall incorporate the following measures into the project site’s final internal circulation design:

• Internal driveway approaches shall be painted red to prohibit stopping and maintain sight-distance;

• Internal roadway curbs shall be painted red to prohibit stopping; • Internal circulation would use a curbside drop-off zone, which shall be painted white and striped with a lane to allow vehicles to pass on the left-side of loading/unloading vehicles;

• The loading zone shall be marked with signs/pavement markings that make vehicles aware of pedestrian and loading activities;

• Signs and pavement markings (i.e., painted arrows) shall designate directional flow through the parking lot.

Mitigation Measure TRAN-2: PAUSD shall integrate the following measures to reduce potential queuing impacts:

• Circulate informational flyers to parents and students that discuss on-site circulation patterns and designated parking areas;

• Encourage drivers with disabled passengers that would require longer dwell times (i.e., wheelchair users) to use ADA parking spaces for loading/unload;

• Use staff to monitor and direct on-site traffic during peak drop-off/pickup times both before and after school (i.e., 7:45 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.).

With implementation of the above mitigation measures, there would be no apparent circulation design features that would create a traffic safety hazard or significantly increase the potential for conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. e) Less than Significant. The proposed project is located at the intersection of major roadways (El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road). The driveways as designed in the site plan would provide adequate emergency access. There would be no blockage of access or traffic pattern disturbance that would significantly affect emergency access. Red curb will be used along interior roadways and driveways to provide sufficient response time for emergency vehicles. The fire lane must be a minimum of 18 feet in width and must be kept clear at all times. The project’s effect would be less than significant. f) Less than Significant. The City of Palo Alto requires one parking space for every five students, plus one space for each four teaching stations. The proposed daily population for the high school is approximately 2,300 students and 92 teachers (1 for every 25 students), thus requiring 483 parking spaces. Using the current parking demand of approximately 416 spaces on a typical weekday, the future demand rate

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 97 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

with buildout of the Master Plan would be approximately 550 spaces. The proposed on-site parking supply for the school is proposed to remain at 555 spaces; the project’s effect would be less than significant.

The high school has an existing parking demand management program which limits student driving to campus though permits. The program is enforced through cooperation with the City police, which uses parking enforcement (tickets) to ensure adherence to the program.

g) Less than Significant. The project is located in an established urban area, and buildout of the Master Plan would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.

The increase in students and employees could increase the use of alternative transportation modes. The high school has, and will continue to implement, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that shifts students to alternative modes of travel. Decreasing the volume of vehicular traffic to the school through the promotion of alternative modes of travel including carpooling, biking, or use of public transit, is fundamental to any TDM program. The project’s effect would be less than significant.

Sources Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation (8th edition), 2008. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Transit and Rail Map, http://www.vta.org/schedules/pdf/bus_rail_map_a.pdf, accessed August 18, 2009. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Bike Map, http://www.vta.org/schedules/pdf/vta_bike_map_a.pdf, accessed August 18, 2009. Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Wilson Engineering, On-Site Traffic Study for Gunn High School. Prepared for the Palo Alto Unified School District, May 2009. Wilson Engineering. An Assessment of Gunn and Play High Schools Trip Generation, Traffic Assignment and LOS Assessment Associated with Measure B, prepared for the Palo Alto Unified School District, August 7, 2009.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 98 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

16. Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? 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? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Setting Water supply to the City of Palo Alto is provided by the City Utilities Department through purchases from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Hetch Hetchy water supply system. On average, 85 percent of this water is derived from snow melt flowing into the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park, and the balance is from runoff stored in San Francisco Bay Area reservoirs on the Peninsula and in the East Bay. There are five wells in Palo Alto that are maintained as an emergency source of supply. Palo Alto also uses recycled water from the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to irrigate the municipal golf course, Greer Park, and landscaping around the RWQCP.

The City owns and operates an approximate 200-mile wastewater collection system and operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The RWQCP also serves Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, East Palo Alto, and Stanford University. Approximately 26 million gallons of wastewater are processed on a daily basis at the RWQCP and 9.5 billion gallons annually (3.3 billion gallons from Palo Alto).

The City also provides weekly waste, yard waste and recycling collection service to all homes and businesses in the City. Yard waste is currently composted at the Palo Alto Landfill. Waste collected at the curbside goes to the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station or to another facility for additional sorting. The processed waste is

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 99 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

ultimately placed in a landfill at the Kirby Canyon Landfill in San Jose. The Palo Alto Landfill, which is scheduled to close in 2011, currently accepts waste from self-haul and City vehicles. The City is required by State law to divert 50 percent of its waste stream from landfills. In 2006, the City diverted 62 percent of its waste stream.

Discussion a, e) Less than Significant. Minimal growth in student and staff populations would occur over the duration of the Master Plan. As discussed in the Project Description, the proposed Master Plan identifies an increase in the student enrollment at the high school through 2017. The student capacity over the eight-year period of the Master Plan would increase by approximately 350 students, or about 44 students per year. This increase would not result in substantial increases in wastewater generation over existing conditions at the project site such that the wastewater treatment requirements would be exceeded.

Furthermore, the City of Palo Alto’s General Plan EIR found that overall population growth that would occur in the City (of which future PAUSD students and staff would be a part) would not create significant amounts of wastewater that would exceed the RWQCP treatment capacity or require expansion of the treatment plant. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact regarding wastewater treatment requirements. b, d) Less than Significant. The proposed project would result in the development of a combined maximum total of approximately 110,000-square feet of new educational uses on the project site. These new uses (e.g., new classrooms, gymnasium, labs, etc.), and the minor increases in student and staff population they would accommodate over the Master Plan’s eight-year planning period would incrementally increase local water demand and wastewater generation at the project site, as discussed above.

As noted in the General Plan EIR, the City would have access to adequate water supplies and wastewater treatment capacity to serve anticipated population growth. Therefore, the proposed project would not require new or expanded water or wastewater facilities and effects to water treatment facilities would be less than significant.

c) Less than Significant. New buildings and other structures proposed under the Master Plan would require connection to the existing on-site stormwater drainage system. Stormwater runoff from the project site would be routed to the municipal stormwater collection system.

As discussed in Section 8, Hydrology and Water Quality, and as required by Mitigation Measure HYD-1, the PAUSD would be required to develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that would identify Best Management Practices to

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 100 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

ensure that construction of new on-site stormwater infrastructure would not result in adverse impacts to water quality. f, g) Less than Significant. Palo Alto High School student and staff population growth would be relatively stable over the eight-year Master Plan horizon. The Kirby Canyon Landfill has adequate capacity until 2022, and as such, the General Plan’s regional growth, including minor increases in local student and staff populations at the project site, would not adversely affect capacity at the Kirby Canyon Landfill; therefore, impacts to solid waste would be less than significant.

Additionally, in conformance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the proposed project would not affect compliance with solid waste statutes and regulations.

Sources California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), Active Landfills Profile for Kirby Canyon Recycling and Disposal Facility, www.ciwmb.ca.gov/profiles/facility/landfill, accessed July 23, 2009. CIWMB, Jurisdiction Profile for City of Palo Alto, www.ciwmb.ca.gov/profiles/Juris, accessed July 23, 2009. City of Palo Alto, All About Your Utilities: Palo Alto’s Homegrown Asset, April 10, 2007. City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan Update, 1996. City of Palo Alto, Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report, Comprehensive Plan Update, 1996.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 101 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance Would the project: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Discussion a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Based upon background research, site reconnaissance, and the project description, the project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The proposed project could have an adverse impact on the historic significance of the Haymarket Theater or Tower Building. However, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Any potential short-term increases in potential effects to the environment during construction are mitigated to a less than significant level, as described throughout the Initial Study. b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was conducted to determine if there were any project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. No project-specific significant effects peculiar to the project or its site were identified that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. The proposed project would contribute to environmental effects in the areas of biological resources (e.g., loss of trees), temporary increases in construction-generated dust and noise, temporary increase in sedimentation and water quality effects during construction, and operational traffic and circulation impacts. Mitigation measures incorporated herein mitigate any potential contribution to cumulative impacts associated with these environmental issues. Therefore, the proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 102 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 Initial Study

c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The project may have significant adverse effects on human beings in the areas of air quality, noise, and traffic during construction, and with geologic/seismic considerations with new development. Mitigation measures AIR-1 and 2; GEO-1; NOI-1 through 4; and TRANS-1 and 2 would reduce the effects to a less than significant level.

Palo Alto High School Master Plan 103 ESA / 209002 Initial Study September 2009 350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza www.esassoc.com Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94612 510.839.5066 phone 510.839.5825 fax

memorandum

date January 29, 2010 to Palo Alto Unified School District from Lesley Lowe, AICP - ESA Project Manager Cory Barringhaus, AICP – ESA Senior Associate John Wilson, P.E., - Wilson Engineering subject Palo Alto High School: Response to Questions/Comments on the Draft Initial Study (ESA No. 209002)

On October 6, 2009 the Palo Alto Unified School District (Lead Agency) released for public review a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Palo Alto High School Master Plan (SCH# 2009102023). The 30-day public review and comment period began on October 6, 2009 and closed at 5:00 p.m. on November 4, 2009. Further, a public hearing on the project was held on October 27, 2009, at a regularly scheduled School Board Meeting.

This memorandum summarizes and responds generally to the comments and questions on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Palo Alto High School Master Plan. Following circulation of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, minor changes were made in response to comments to clarify the project description and add specifics to mitigation measures presented in the document.

Comments have been organized by general concern and further categorized by a subtopic. The subtopic is summarized and a response provided. Comment letters received during the public review period are attached as Attachment A. The minutes from the October 27, 2009 School Board Meeting are attached as Attachment B.

Responses to Comments Transportation and Circulation Trip Generation

Comment states the trip generation rate from ITE underestimates the forecast of new auto trips based on the proposed increase in student population; e.g., no school buses are used.

Response: The traffic analysis prepared for the draft Initial Study utilized Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Standard Trip Generation Rates when estimating increases in traffic which could be associated with potential increases in student population over the next nine years. The ITE rates are based on studies of over 20 sites throughout the US and are generally considered to best available on an overall basis. However, the rates are qualified to the extent that more research is needed relative to us of school busing, transit and whether the schools were private or public. This information was not recorded in ITE manual other than to state the percentage of students transported by transit and/or bus varied considerably. At the Palo Alto High School sites there is different sort of variation which occurs. At both Paly and Gunn a high percentage of students bicycle. During clear weather in the Fall, as many as 600 plus students or a third or more students regularly commute by bike to Gunn. Surveys of existing travel modes conducted last year at the two high schools were completed on brisk March days when bicycle commute was reduced by 200 plus. This phenomenon results in proportional increase in auto commuting, typically in the form of drop-offs as a result of parking at the schools being controlled with permits. Students cannot simply drive themselves on a rainy day. As such, the survey of drop-offs (and inbound and outbound trip) showed a significantly increased number relative to what regularly occurs on a sunny day should be interpreted as more of a worst case estimate.

The following table summarizes trip generation estimates utilizing the more conservative or worst case results from the March surveys. The numbers are based upon a simple pro rata increase of survey results (driveway counts) relative to the potential increase in student population at Paly. The student population is forecast to increase from a level of 1,773 for the 2008/2009 year to 2,291 in 2018 or by 29.22%

Using this worst case type estimate which assumes Building D with District offices together with all other district uses having access from the Churchill driveway remain yields a total of approximately 260 new trips when bicycle commuting is at its lowest point.

As such Table 7 of the Initial Study as been revised as follows:

TABLE 7 AM PEAK HOUR TRIP FORECAST

Existing Student Forecast 2018 Net Inbound/ Population Student Population Net Increase in Tripsa Outbound Trips

1,773 2,291 260 155/105

a 29.29%increase relative to existing driveway vehicle counts.

SOURCE: Wilson, 2009, 2010;

Intersection Levels of Service

Comment states that study intersections are not quantified in terms of additional delay attributable to the increased traffic. Commenter also states there is no comparison between cumulative with project and cumulative without project.

Response: Table 8 of the Initial Study presents the project’s contribution to delay at the study intersection under the Existing plus Project scenario (under Project) in seconds of delay at the intersection per standard traffic engineering practices. This is directly applicable to Existing Conditions only but can serve as a broad estimate of the project related increases in delay at the study intersections under cumulative conditions. The key issue is all intersections are forecast to continue to operate acceptably under Cumulative Conditions regardless of any increase in delay.

2 As noted in the Initial Study discussion, with the addition of project-generated traffic, the study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during the a.m. peak hour, and therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on intersection delay. Likewise, intersection delay analysis under cumulative conditions, found that with project related trips, the intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service, also, having a less than significant impact.

However, because the trip generation analysis was revised per public comments intersection level of service has also been revised. As such Table 8 of the Initial Study as been revised as follows:

TABLE 8 EXISTING AND FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS) AND AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY (seconds/vehicles)a

Existing + Control Existing Project Cumulative w/Project

Intersection Typeb Delayc LOS Delayc LOS Delayc LOS

AM Peak Hour El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road Signal 43.9 D 44.2 D 48.6 D Embarcadero Road and School Driveway Signal 9.4 A 10.0 B+ 10.7 B+ El Camino Real and Churchill Avenue Signal 22.8 C+ 23.5 C 23.8 C Churchill Avenue and Alma Street Signal 35.0 C- 35.6 D+ 42.9 D Churchill Avenue and School Driveway TWSC

a LOS calculations performed for using TRAFFIX and the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual operations analysis methodology. b Type of control, Signalized or TWSC = Two-way stop (sign) controlled c Represents overall intersection delay of intersections

SOURCE: Wilson (2009)

As noted in the Initial Study, all studied intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels. With the addition of the project generated traffic, the Cumulative Conditions, the delay would increase at the studied intersections, but would continue to operate at an acceptable level during the a.m peak hour. Therefore, the project’s impact to Cumulative Conditions would be less than significant.

Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Policies and Implementation

Comment states the current and proposed TDM plans are inadequate for the following reasons:

• Many of the proposed mitigations are already being implemented through the TDM and by other means • Transportation mode shift from auto to other modes is not quantified • Proposed carpool matching program lacks goals and specific implementation information

Response: No specific traffic related impacts requiring mitigation were identified at this school site. Mitigation Measure TRANS-2, which addresses onsite circulation, includes the following revisions which identify TDM policies which would be implemented by the school as part of an overall traffic reduction program. These could be implemented, and monitored, when the Level of Services becomes a LOS F:

3 • Investigate and provide additional Embarcadero Shuttles to Palo Alto High School during the morning peak hour. • Provide 250 VTA Eco Passes to students free of charge. This is an estimated charge of $9,000 to the districts per year. • Coordinate a voluntary ride-sharing program. • Increase the number of bike racks in campus to encourage less driving.

In addition, the following TDM efforts would be included as part of the Master Plan • Increase of bike racks. This also includes additional bike racks near the Media Arts Center, close to the Cal-Train entrance. • Parking re-stripping plan

Access and Circulation

Comment states that using staff to monitor and direct traffic during peak drop-off/pick-up times lacks specific implementation information and has been unsuccessful in the past.

Response: Mitigation Measure TRANS-2, which addresses onsite circulation, includes the following revisions which identify when the TDM policies would be implemented and outlines additional policies that would be added to the current program:

• Provide additional staff at the Churchill and School Driveway entrance.

Transit Ridership

Comment states that bus ridership was not quantified in the traffic study.

Response: As discussed in Section 15, Transportation, of the Initial Study, bus service in Santa Clara County is operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Commuter rail service (Caltrain) is provided from San Francisco to Gilroy by the Peninsula Joint Powers Board. Route 22 and the Embarcadero Shuttle, currently provide service in the vicinity of the project. Review of current operations of Route 22 with VTA Staff indicates there is excess capacity available. The buses are articulated with a seating capacity of 55 max and standing capacity of about 80 and run on 12 minute headways during peak periods. Since the school is close to the end of the line in Palo Alto, the passenger load in that area is not very high (as compared to downtown San Jose, for example). Approximately 7 to 10 students currently use Route 22.

The proposed project which would increase student population by 29.22 percent would increase ridership on these two lines. Both lines have sufficient capacity in accommodate new patrons related to the proposed project. Further, as noted under the TDM response above and under revised Mitigation Measure TRANS-2, the PAUSD would provide 250 VTA Eco Passes to student free of charge. These additional trips can be accommodated under the existing capacity of the transit service.

4 Mode Conflicts

Comment indicates intersections with potential conflicts between vehicles and bicycles/pedestrians were not discussed: Churchill Avenue/Casteilleja Avenue and Embarcadero Road/school entrance.

Response: Intersections selected for analysis were chosen as those adjacent to the school site and most affected by potential project trip generation and trip distribution. Intersections selected for analysis represent those with the potential to have significant operational impacts due to the increase in the student population at the site. However, as presented in Table 8, as revised in this memorandum, the project is forecast to have a less than significant impact on study intersections.

The following intersections were analyzed in the Initial Study:

• El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road • Embarcadero Road and School Driveway • El Camino Real and Churchill Avenue • Churchill Avenue and Alma Street • Churchill Avenue and School Driveway

Relative to Embarcadero Road and the school entrance, the city is signalizing the intersection which will further reduce conflicts. In addition, currently there is a separate signalized pedestrian crossing which will remain.

Bicycle and pedestrian access to the campus was discussed under Section 15, Transportation, checklist item d. As noted in the discussion, the increase in students, and thus pedestrians and cyclists to the campus would use existing facilities and although there would be an increase in the potential for interaction between vehicles and these travel modes, there are no apparent safety concerns between the increase in students and the existing facilities.

In addition, the traffic and circulation project, as part of the Master Plan, will address: • Bike path improvements • Embarcadero Road and School Entrance circulation • Churchill Avenue and School Driveway circulation • Bike access improvements at the Churchill entrance

High Speed Rail

Comment mentions impact of possible high speed rail adjacent to high school campus.

Response: At this time it is difficult to determine what the impact of the proposed high-speed rail would be as there is no current program or design. As this is an existing school campus, and the proposed project would increase student population in campus core, the high speed-rail would have similar impacts to that of the existing Caltrain service. The impacts of a high speed rail line related to noise would be similar to the conditions outlined in the Initial Study in Section 11, Noise. It should be noted that PAUSD is following the proposed project, and will assure that potential safety, noise, and visual impacts related to the rail line would be fully mitigated along the school boundary.

5 Hydrology Mitigations Details

Comment notes lack of detail regarding stormwater runoff design and compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s C.3 requirements.

Response: As described in the project description of the Initial Study, the Palo Alto High School Master Plan is a planning level document and as such specific details of the stormwater drainage system have not been developed at this stage in the planning process. Potential impacts regarding stormwater runoff would be mitigated to a less than significant level by Mitigation Measure HYD-1, which requires compliance with provisions of the NPDES regulations, including the C.3 provisions.

Municipal Stormwater Permit

Comment notes that the project will have to comply with the new regional municipal stormwater permit, which also requires use of low impact development techniques under C.3.

Response: The PAUSD acknowledges the comment and will fully comply with the regulatory requirements of the NPDES through implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1.

Drainage and Stormwater

Comment notes existing drainage problems have not been addressed and that a landscape architect has not yet generated a proposal to keep stormwater on the campus; requests more specific details.

Aesthetics Landscape Master Plan.

Comment states that the visual impact of the proposed theater on the Haymarket and Tower buildings is not adequately addressed, and requests that renderings of the new theater should be made available.

Response: As described in the project description of the Initial Study, the Palo Alto High School Master Plan is a planning level document and as such no renderings, massing studies, or landscaping plans have been prepared. A landscape master plan is currently in programming for conceptual design.

6 Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse Gases and Land Use

Comment states the greenhouse gas analysis does not link with the land use discussion.

Response: Potential impacts regarding the emissions of greenhouse gases are discussed at length in Section 3, Air Quality of the Initial Study. The proposed project, the Palo Alto High School Master Plan, would not result in any significant impacts due to emissions of greenhouse gases through implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2, which identifies several measures designed to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

Greenhouse Gases and Noise

Comment notes that the greenhouse gas and noise analysis use traffic numbers that may need to be updated depending on the use of the ITE trip generation rate.

Response: The trip generation estimates were revised to address public comments and the net new morning vehicle trips were increased by approximately 29 percent. Page 34 of the Initial Study, is updated as follows to reflect the increase in vehicle trips:

(approximately 3.9 4.8 pounds per day), NOx (approximately 3.7 4.7 pounds per day) and PM-10 (approximately 11.5 14.8 pounds per day) due to vehicle exhaust. Increases in emissions from stationary sources at the site (such as natural gas combustion for space and water heating, landscaping, use of consumer products, etc.) would also be minimal (approximately 0.08 pounds

per day of ROG and 1.06 pounds per day of NOx). Together, operational emissions increases resulting from the project would represent approximately ten percent or less of the quantities

BAAQMD currently identifies as significant (80 pounds per day of either ROG, NOx, or PM-10, individually. Therefore, once operational, the development under the Master Plan would not significantly contribute to a violation of any air quality standard in the area. Project emissions would also be below new CEQA thresholds proposed by BAAQMD of 54 pounds per day of ROG, NOx and PM-2.5 and 82 pounds per day of PM-10.

The modified trip generation would also increase noise, but as noted in Table 2 of Section 11, Noise of the Initial Study, Table 2, roadway traffic noise increases resulting from the proposed project would be less than 1 dBA. Generally, even in a laboratory environment, increases of less than 1 dBA are too small to be detected by the human ear (Caltrans, 1998). Consequently, the increased trip generation rates would not increase roadway noise that would result in a significant impact. Table 2 of the Initial Study is updated to reflect the increase vehicle trips as follows:

7 TABLE 2 TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASES IN ROADSIDE LEQ

Modeled Modeled Cumulative Contribution of Cumulative Year Incremental Increase 2009 vs Existing + Proposed 2018 with 2018 Road Segment Existing Project Project Proposed Project with Proposed Project)

1. Embarcadero Road (between Kingsley Avenue and Paly 62.9 63.4 0.5 64.5 1.6 Driveway)

2. El Camino Real (between Churchill 69.3 69.5 0.2 70.2 0.9 Avenue and Embarcadero Road)

3. Churchill Avenue (between Paly 59.8 60.2 0.4 60.3 0.5 Driveway and El Camino Real)

4. Churchill Avenue (between 57.1 57.4 0.3 59.6 2.5 Emerson Street and Alma Street)

5 Alma Street (between Kellogg 68.7 68.9 0.2 67.6 b Avenue and Churchill Avenue) - 1.1

6. Alma Street (between Coleridge 69.4 69.6 0.2 68.8 b Avenue and Churchill Avenue) - 0.6

SOURCE: ESA, 2010.

Land Use Land Use and Community Design Element

Comment notes minor edits in reference to the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.

Response: The PAUSD acknowledges the comments and page 24 of the Initial Study is revised as follows:

City of Palo Alto, Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010, Land Use and Community Design Element, adopted July 20 17, 1998 2007.

All references in the Initial Study to the “Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update 1996” are revised to read “Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010.”

Attachment A Palo Alto Council of PTAs

25 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA, 94306 650-326-0702

November 18, 2009

Attn: Tom Hodges Palo Alto Unified School District 25 Churchill, Building D Palo Alto, CA 94306

The Palo Alto Council of PTAs Traffic Safety Committee respectfully submits the following comments on the Transportation /Traffic sections of the Gunn and Paly Draft Mitigated Negative Declarations.

Trip Generation Projection--The report uses standard figures for increases in trips based on the land use category from the ITE. While this may satisfy a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirement, it does not necessarily predict the situation at Gunn High School or Paly today. For example, the present number of morning peak hour auto trips at Gunn is 922. The ITE formula is for every 3.79 students we add one car trip. Based on the ITE model there currently should be 514 auto trips in the peak hour. So, readers of this report should be cautioned that the ITE formula underestimates the forecast of new auto trips with the increase in student population. The increase in trips very likely will be significantly greater than the ITE forecast of 82 trips, possibly as much as 75% higher when we extrapolate from today’s 2.11 students per car trip. A difference of this scale will likely have a significant impact but it is not modeled in this analysis.

Traffic is one of the top concerns cited by participants at Gunn planning meetings.

TDM Plan Lacks Specific Goals & Critical Program Details

The Gunn and Paly reports rely on Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans for mitigations. However, the proposed mitigation plan doesn’t define performance criteria. Transportation mode shift, that is the percentage of students shifting from autos to other modes of transportation, which would be needed to provide adequate mitigation, is never quantified. Without that data, it is impossible to evaluate whether or not the reports’ conclusions that adequate mitigation is achievable is correct or incorrect. What is the mode shift goal of these mitigations? How many car trips need to be shifted to other modes in order to mitigate the transportation impacts of this expansion? Precisely how will that goal be achieved?

Further, elements that could determine the success or failure of a TDM plan are not adequately specified, making it unenforceable. Typically, well written TDM plans have very specific participation and mode shift goals that should be attributed to each element of the plan. There is none of that in this plan.

For example, a carpool matching program is cited as a required mitigation measure, yet the program has no goals attached to it in terms of participation. No specifics about organization of the matching program are outlined. Who will be responsible for organizing and managing the carpool matching program? Staff? PTA volunteers? Have they agreed to do this? What funding source will be used for this? This is time intensive work. What resources will PAUSD be required to apply to the carpool matching program? Carpool matching programs are most successful when students are matched at the very beginning of the school year before commute patterns are established. Will PAUSD release information to make it possible to create a carpool matching database or maps in time to meet this critical deadline? Even with this commitment, we don’t yet have a carpool matching model that we know really works for this school district. The PTA Traffic Safety Committee has experimented at Escondido and Ohlone with several carpool matching models yielding limited success. (Our best performance to date has been this year’s report from Ohlone, increasing from 26 carpoolers last year to 45 carpoolers this year.) The district has not allowed us to create an on-line matching program so we have not been able to explore that as an option.

A plan that depends on encouraging alternative modes as a primary mitigation should carefully spell out facilities capacity needs for those alternative modes. We suggest, at minimum, that enough bike parking spaces should be provided to meet current peak demand. That would require a minimum of 633 bike parking spaces at Gunn and 582 at Paly. Since the goal is to increase the number of bikes, we should plan for even greater numbers based on mode shift need for mitigation. Bike counts for both high schools for the last ten years were provided to staff at the beginning of the planning process to help them project probable future growth rates. The CEQA document should project probable bike count increases and specify a bike parking space number requirement in the mitigations.

Further, the driveway and circulation design for both sites is still underway. It will be critically important to address the comfort and safety of bicyclists and pedestrians if we are to achieve successful mode shift. Usually, the parking/circulation plan for all modes would be included in the mitigations list as it must be part of the mitigation in a TDM plan in order to make it work.

Gunn Mitigation Measure TRAN-4 requires staff to monitor and direct onsite traffic during peak drop-off/pick-up times. This is something Gunn staff has not been able to do consistently in the past. Is there funding for additional staff time? Has anyone asked Gunn staff how they will be able to implement this mitigation in the future? (Traffic Direction is not something PTA volunteers can do. The PTA insurance policy explicitly excludes this activity. If staff cannot do it, it won’t get done.) The same is true at Paly.

Most of the other mitigations proposed for Gunn already have been implemented. Gunn PTA Traffic Safety Team already directs bike access away from the main Gunn campus driveway. We already provide maps and circulation instructions on the school web site and information about alternative modes of transportation (including buses, pedestrian and bike route maps, etc.) at the beginning of the year. Gunn already limits the number of parking permits. Paly provides some information re: Transportation on their web site as well. Please direct staff to specify that this is already being done in their final document. We can’t realistically expect a significant incremental mode shift from activities we are already doing.

To reiterate the primary point: Most of the mitigations proposed in this document are already in place. We have a good idea how much mode shift we can achieve with these measures because we are already doing them. What we cannot tell from these documents is what additional mode shift is required to adequately mitigate the additional vehicle impacts of this project. That goal is not quantified anywhere in the document; therefore, it is impossible to evaluate whether or not the goal is achievable as the report claims it is. That reporting failure should be corrected. Without it the Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate.

Bus ridership The Gunn report doesn’t quantify am/pm VTA bus ridership. The same is true of City of Palo Alto Shuttle use at Paly. Was bus use studied?

Intersection Level of Service On page 78 (Gunn report) the report notes that Arastradero intersections at Miranda and the Gunn driveway already are at LOS F. Additional intersection delays are not specifically quantified because the intersection operations already are operating at an unacceptable level. However, though there isn’t a worse LOS “grade” than F, it is possible for real world road users to experience greater delay than they currently do. Further degradation of these intersections will impact the performance of Arastradero Road as a whole. The report only reports this as >120 seconds in these cases, and it does not specifically quantify the delay.

Delays at the Gunn driveway at morning bell time are a key factor driving peak hour performance of the Arastradero street system. Currently, no other single facility on Arastradero has a more negative impact on operational efficiency of the road than Gunn HS. We need to make sure the district has gotten this right.

The likely effect of further LOS degradation would be “peak spreading”—the peak period during which the intersection operates at LOS F will become longer with road users choosing to travel earlier and earlier to avoid delays. Under most circumstances, traffic would also spread later, but that cannot happen at school sites where peak periods are driven by bell times. Peak spreading will make the Gunn Mitigation Measure TRAN-2 that provides early morning study areas or breakfast incentives necessary.

A mitigation to address LOS degradation was suggested in the original traffic study for this project by Wilson Engineering. That was staggering Gunn bell times. This would spread out arrivals, eliminating peak loads that precede current bell times. This same mitigation was independently proposed by City of Palo Alto Consulting Engineer Gary Kruger to improve LOS at impacted Arastradero corridor intersections. The district rejected this mitigation, citing logistical difficulty of implementation. If the engineers’ recommended mitigation is rejected, then a substantive alternative is required that will adequately mitigate the LOS impacts. The current proposed mitigations do not include such an alternative mitigation.

The LOS problem remains and increased enrollment will worsen the situation at multiple Arastradero intersections, including: Gunn driveway, Foothill, Donald/Terman. If the district opts not to shift bell times, an adequate alternative mitigation must be identified. Gunn PTSA has suggested opening the library earlier and adding many more zero period classes. Zero period classes might help, depending on the number of classes. If this is to be required as an alternate mitigation, the number of zero period classes needed to provide adequate mitigation should be studied. The requirement should be very specific as to the number of zero period classes needed to insure adequate split of the auto surge to mitigate LOS impacts. Further, a traffic engineer should check to make sure that the timing of the zero period arrival time will not add traffic to affected Arastradero intersections during the Terman morning bell time surge.

Bike Facilities—p. 79 should note the bike path that connects the rear of campus to Georgia.

Parking demand—Gunn has 461 total existing spaces with current demand at 440 (or 95 percent). As parking mitigations require no increase in parking spaces or permits, how will PAUSD deal with probable shift of auto parking to nearby neighborhoods? Has this probable outcome been studied and/or discussed with the City of Palo Alto? This will be less of a problem at Paly where parking capacity is closer to projected demand, but it is a likely problem for both sites. Because projected trip generation is underestimated (see below), it is likely the parking problem will be much greater than the CEQA document indicates.

The purpose of an environmental review is to insure that information is gathered to inform the planning process for proper mitigation. It is an important responsibility to the community to get this right. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declarations for Gunn and Palo Alto High Schools and we thank you for giving these comments your usual thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,

Penny Ellson, 2009-10 Chair and Middle School Schools Representative Palo Alto Council of PTAs Traffic Safety Committee

Christine Fawcett, High Schools Representative Palo Alto Council of PTAs Traffic Safety Committee

George Pierce, Elementary Schools Representative Palo Alto Council of PTAs Traffic Safety Committee

Comments on the Initial Study and Environmental Checklist for California Environmental Quality Act for the Gunn High School Master Plan dated September 2009 Arthur M. Keller, Gunn Facilities Planning Committee, PTSA Public Transit Coordinator, Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission member, Gunn parent 1. The reference on page 20 to the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is erroneous. The chapter is called the Land Use and Community Design element, and it was part of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan for 1998-2010 adopted well before 2007. 2. The greenhouse gas analysis on page 24 and noise analysis on page 66 each assume in increase in daily trips of 532, which may be an underestimate. 3. The various references to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update 1996 should instead refer to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010. 4. Table 7 on page 82 states that the AM peak hour delays will remain at LOS F for both Arastradero Road / Miranda Avenue and Arastradero Road / School Driveway. However, no specific measure of critical delay was made other than the vague “> 120”; however the City of Palo Alto’s traffic significance thresholds states, “A significant impact results if the existing LOS is already D or worse at the intersections not included in ‘a’ above and the addition of project traffic causes an increase of one second or more of critical movement delay.”1 It is likely that the expected increase in traffic will increase the critical movement delay by more than one second, and the mitigations proposed are unlikely to reduce this increase to no more than one second. Furthermore, the increase in critical movement delay of 1.8 seconds exceeds the threshold of significance as determined by Palo Alto standards for the Arastradero Road and Donald/Terman intersection (see Table 7, page 82), even though the report implies that this increase is less than significant with mitigations. It is not demonstrated how the increase in critical movement delay would be reduced by mitigations to below one second. 5. Mitigation TRAN-1 regarding setting up a carpool-matching program for students is not realistic. The primary mechanism for such a matching program is through the student directory, which is not released to the students until November and does not geocode the student addresses. There is no quantification for the amount of carpooling currently occurring nor are there quantified goals for the increase in carpooling. No reference is made as to the apportionment of the increase of carpooling between students in carpools driving to Gunn High School versus parents dropping off and picking up carpools. 6. Mitigation TRAN-2 contains measures that are already in practice, and it is unclear the extent to which these measures will “not increase traffic volumes to the high school as the student body increases.” (page 82) 7. Spillover traffic and parking at the adjacent Barron Park neighborhood may be a consequence of the lack of increase in onsite parking spaces. No mitigation measures to address that consequential effect is provided. For example, there may be an increase in student dropoffs by parents on Georgia to avoid the Gunn High Driveway delay.

1 See “TRANSPORTATION SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS—STUDY SESSION AND NEW INTERIM STANDARDS (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 19, 2002),” dated October 9, 2002, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=7475

1 8. Will the price of student parking permits be increased if demand exceeds supply of permits, as proposed to be limited relative to 2009. In particular, as the number of teachers will be increased with student enrollment, more of the proposed-to-be-fixed parking spaces will have to be allocated to staff, with fewer students parking on campus. Replacing students driving with being dropped off by parents means replacing one-way trips with round trips. More morning round trips means long cycle times for cars exiting Gunn High School, adding to the critical movement delays at the Arastradero Road / Gunn High School intersection. While doing so may be beneficial from a land-use perspective, it is not an effective measure to reduce traffic impacts. 9. Maps are currently provided at the start of the school year illustrating preferred bicycle routes, which includes directing students to access the campus via Georgia and Los Robles rather than Arastradero Road. The data on Figure 12 indicates that this is successful and it is clear what greater success is intended by these measures. 10. The proposal to get students to arrive at Gunn High School before the peak rush through breakfast or by providing study areas is particularly unrealistic. High school students are chronically sleep deprived.2 11. The PTSA bicycle count has exceeded 600 on a warmer day (page 84), a suggested mitigation is to ensure that there is sufficient bike parking. As the enrollment is projected to increase by 21% over current levels, a proportionate increase would mean at least 750 secured bicycle parking spaces. Increased incentives (such as even more than a proportionate increase in bicycle parking) to bicycling would help to “not increase traffic volumes to the high school as the student body increases.” (page 82) 12. Measures have already been taken to increase student use of the VTA 88 bus routes. Another transportation mitigation measure that should be considered is to provide free VTA Eco Passes to all students at Gunn High School as a sticker on their student body card. The cost per student might be less if students at both Gunn High School and Palo Alto High School were included in the program. As demand for VTA bus service increases, PAUSD should provide support for working with the VTA to increase the number of buses provided before and after school and perhaps increase the number of distinct routes from the current three. 13. Another transportation mitigation measure to consider is to increase PAUSD bus service to accommodate demand by the approximately 160 Gunn students from Los Altos Hills and approximately 100 Gunn students from Stanford. 14. The queue of dropoffs (1100 feet in two lanes) is shared with the queue of students parking. This combination queue increases backups, and is not considered in the report. 15. Which staff members are proposed to monitor and direct traffic during peak dropoff/pickup times and how are they to be funded? 16. Another potential traffic mitigation is to have a right turn arrow from Arastradero Road into the Gunn High School driveway, so that inexperienced drivers do not stop when they have a “free” right turn and there are no pedestrians wanting to cross. Including signalized pedestrian crosswalk across the “free” right turn would handle the pedestrian/vehicle conflict.

2 See Laura Brown, “Early start time deprives teenagers of crucial sleep,” the Paly Voice, December 17, 2004, http://voice.paly.net/view_story.php?id=2431

2 17. The increase in AM peak hour trip forecast of 57 more inbound trips and 25 more outbound trips (Table 6, page 81) is contradicted by data elsewhere in the report. On page 84, it states that the number of vehicles dropping off students is expected to increase from 365 to 450, an increase in 85. Thus, one would expect an increase of 85 more inbound and outbound trips just from student dropoffs alone. Considering the limitation in parking, this number is likely to increase as noted in Item 8 above. 18. Current 11th day enrollment for Gunn High School is 1,898 and was 1,907 last year. 3 Table 6 (page 81) cites an existing student population of 1,948 with forecast of 2,259. However, page 5 cites an enrollment (last year) of 1,917. The increased enrollment based on Table 6 is less than 16%, while the actual increase from current levels to 2,300 is over 21%. Such a discrepancy calls into question the remaining figures in the analysis of the Initial Study. 19. The parking requirement stated is “one [parking] space for each four teaching stations.” (page 85). The report computes 92 teachers, but Gunn has 120 classrooms4 and likely even more “teaching stations.” 20. We observe that only increases in the numbers of students walking, bicycling, or riding buses to school, or increases in carpooling decreases traffic. The Initial Study states, “The goal of the TDM program is to not increase traffic volumes to the high school as the student body increases.” Thus, the TDM (Transportation Demand Management Program) must be sufficient with measureable quantified goals so that an additional 400 students must arrive at Gunn High School through alternative means. The number of students walking to school is limited by geography and is unlikely to increase. Specific and measureable mitigations are required to increase bicycling, bus use, and carpooling totaling 400 students. We believe that the report is inadequate because it fails to quantify the amount of critical movement delay in the intersections studied that are at LOS F, fails to consider the significant increase in critical movement delay at Arastradero Road and Donald/Terman that is at LOS D, and fails to identify specific, measurable and effective mitigations that increase bicycling, bus riding, and carpooling along with quantified goals, and fails to analyze whether the proposed mitigations will reduce the increase in critical movement delays to a less than significant level.

3 http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=13854 4 http://www.trulia.com/schools/CA-Palo_Alto/Henry_M_Gunn_High_School/

DRAFT

Dear Honorable Board of Education Members,

I am submitting for your review my draft comments on the Trasnportation /Traffic sections of the Gunn and Paly Draft Mitigated Negative Declarations.

The transportation elements of the Paly and Gunn environmental documents are remarkably short for projects of this scale. It makes reading them quick, but thoughtful review difficult. Some basic information is missing.

TDM Plan Lacks Specific Goals & Critical Program Details

The Gunn report relies on Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans for mitigations. However, the proposed mitigation plan doesn’t define performance criteria. Transportation mode shift, that is the percentage of students shifting from autos to other modes of transportation, which would be needed to provide adequate mitigation, is never quantified. Without that data, it is impossible to evaluate whether or not the report‘s conclusion that adequate mitigation is achievable is correct or incorrect. What is the mode shift goal of these mitigations? How many car trips need to be shifted to other modes in order to mitigate the transportation impacts of this expansion? Precisely how will that goal be achieved?

Another example is the bike parking facilities mitigation in the Gunn report: Mitigation Measure TRAN-2 states that bike racks should be located in convenient areas to facilitate ease of queues, safety, and accessibility. This is a good idea; however, the number of additional bike parking spaces needed should be quantified in the Gunn and Paly reports. Further, the mitigation measure should specify that these additional spaces will be made available during the construction period as staff has agreed to do in recent meetings. A plan that depends on encouraging alternative modes as a primary mitigation should carefully spell out facilities capacity needs for those alternative modes. I suggest, at minimum, that enough bike parking spaces should be provided to meet current peak demand. That would require a minimum of 633 bike parking spaces at Gunn and 582 at Paly. Since the goal is to increase the number of bikes, we should plan for even greater numbers based on mode shift need. Please direct staff to make these corrections in the final draft.

Most of the other mitigations proposed for Gunn already have been implemented. Gunn PTA Traffic Safety Team already directs bike access away from the main Gunn campus driveway. We already provide maps and circulation instructions on the school web site and information about alternative modes of transportation (including buses, pedestrian and bike route maps, etc.) at the beginning of the year. Gunn already limits the number of parking permits. Please direct staff to specify that this is already being done in their final document. We can’t realistically expect a significant incremental mode shift from activities we are already doing.

Bus ridership The Gunn report doesn’t quantify am/pm VTA bus ridership. Was bus use studied?

The likely effect of further LOS degradation would be “peak spreading”—the peak period during which the intersection operates at LOS F will become longer with road users choosing to travel earlier and earlier to avoid delays. Under most circumstances, traffic would also spread later, but that cannot happen at school sites where peak periods are driven by bell times. Peak spreading will make the Gunn Mitigation Measure TRAN- 2 that provides early morning study areas or breakfast incentives necessary.

An alternate mitigation that might be considered (suggested in the original traffic study by Wilson Engineering) would be staggering Gunn bell times. This would spread out arrivals, eliminating peak loads that precede current bell times. There would be schedule complications, but this would immediately reduce the bell time surge of auto traffic. This is critically important because at Gunn there is only one driveway. The current bell time surge at that driveway is the equivalent of over 1,200 autos entering per hour in the twenty minute period 7:40-8:00am. This problem certainly will be exacerbated by a campus expansion and could be most effectively addressed by staggering bell times. However, when this was previously discussed it was dismissed as impractical by the district. Site expansion creates enough additional delay that this is an option worth revisiting.

Bike Facilities—p. 79 should note the bike path that connects the rear of campus to Georgia.

The purpose of an environmental review is to insure that information is gathered that can inform the planning process for proper mitigation. It is an important responsibility to the community to get this right.

Thank you for giving these comments your usual thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,

Penny Ellson

TRANSPORTATION DIVISION

Memorandum

Date: November 16, 2009

To: Tom Hodges, Program Director, Palo Alto Unified School District

From: Rafael Rius, P.E., Transportation Project Engineer, City of Palo Alto

Subject: Palo Alto Unified School District – Transportation Comments on the Gunn High School and Palo Alto High School Master Plan, Initial Studies

The following are the City’s comments on the Transportation/Traffic sections (Chapters 15) of the Initial Studies for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declarations (MND) prepared for the Gunn High School and Palo Alto High School Master Plans, dated October 2, 2009 and October 3, 2009, respectively.

Impact Analysis:

Trip Generation provided is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers – Trip Generation Manual. Per the ITE, for unique instances or where more detailed information is available, actual count data should be applied. Part of the reason is that the school district does not provide any bus services, and the local public transit is limited to approximately 3 routes during each of the peak periods.

Re: Palo Alto HS - PAUSD conducted a traffic analysis in May 2009 which included detailed data collection and projections of traffic. Per the May 2009 study, approximately 134 additional vehicles would drive and park on the campus and 148 additional vehicular drop-offs would occur. Combined, this would result in approximately 430 additional AM peak hour vehicle trips, which is substantially greater than the 138 additional trips presented in Table 7 of the MND.

Re: Gunn HS - PAUSD conducted a traffic analysis in May 2009 which included detailed data collection. Per the May 2009 study, approximately 93 additional vehicles would drive and park on the campus and 85 additional drop-offs would occur. Combined, this would result in approximately 263 additional AM peak hour vehicle trips, which is substantially greater than the 82 additional trips presented in Table 6 of the MND.

The City of Palo Alto has significance criteria for intersections that already operate at LOS E or F. The impact analysis for the deficient intersections was not quantified using the City’s thresholds of significance, and should be conducted to determine if a

November 16, 2009 Page 2 of 3

significant impact would occur. Instead the impact analysis qualitatively states that the proposed project would increase vehicular traffic. By quantifying the level of impact, appropriate levels of mitigation can be identified. Attached are the City’s significance criteria for traffic impact analysis which should be used in evaluating the traffic impacts generated by the project on Palo Alto streets.

Proposed Mitigation Measures:

Because the estimated increase in traffic is underestimated, the proposed mitigation most likely will need to include more stringent measures aside from incentives or voluntary ride-share programs. Comprehensive carpooling programs at other schools in the area have shown minimal success. Mitigation measures should be identified subsequent to preparation of an updated traffic analysis using the City’s significance criteria.

By restricting the amount of parking permits, the measures should include any proposals to minimize the amount of parking on neighborhood streets.

A staggered bell schedule for Gunn High School was previously recommended by the PAUSD consulting traffic engineers, as well as City of Palo Alto staff. This should be included as a potential mitigation alternative, since it would be one of the more effective measures.

Attachments:

City of Palo Alto Significance Criteria for Transportation Impacts

ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA (SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS) USED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO

Transportation A traffic impact is considered significant if the project will:

• Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D; or • Cause a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average control delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more, and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more; or • Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from an LOS E or better to LOS F; or • Cause a regional intersection already operating at LOS F to deteriorate in the average control delay for the critical movements to increase by four seconds or more, and the critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or more; or • Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity. Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps; or • Cause a freeway segment (for each direction of traffic) to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F; or • Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities; or • Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion; or • Create an operational safety hazard; or • Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more on a local or collector residential street; or • Result in inadequate on-site parking capacity; or • Result in inadequate emergency access.

Lesley Lowe

From: Aimee Lopez [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 2:39 PM To: Lesley Lowe; Cory Barringhaus Subject: FW: Comments on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for Palo AltoHigh School Master Plan

For your review as well, Aimee

Aimée M. Lopez | Project Manager O'Connor Construction Management, Inc. Palo Alto Unified School District 25 Churchill Ave., Bldg. D, Palo Alto, CA94306 650.329.3968 | Fax 650.327.3588 | Cell 925.580.2714 e-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Ron Smith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 2:38 PM To: Aimee Lopez Subject: FW: Comments on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for Palo Alto High School Master Plan

Mo stuff for you! Happy Friday

-----Original Message----- From: Sue Ma [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 2:24 PM To: Ron Smith; Tom Hodges Cc: Joe Teresi; Ken Torke; Phil Bobel; Brian Wines; Dale Bowyer Subject: Comments on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for Palo Alto High School Master Plan

Greetings:

Water Board staff has reviewed the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Palo Alto High School Master Plan project located at 50 Embarcadero Road, southeast of the intersection of Embarcadero Road and El Camino Real in the city of Palo Alto. The proposed project features construction of new buildings and other structures, including a new two-story, 27-room classroom building and a two-story media arts center.

The subject document identifies water quality as an issue and acknowledges that the project is subject to the New and Redevelopment Requirements (Provision C.3.) in the City of Palo Alto's municipal stormwater permit. Provision C.3. requires that new and redevelopment projects treat stormwater runoff to remove pollutants to the maximum extent practicable and consider/limit changes in the runoff hydrograph. The subject document mentions vegetated swales, detention basins, and landscape infiltration systems as methods to comply with C.3. but does not provide any specific details on the proposed methods being considered for this particular project. These issues need to be identified and addressed early in the planning and design process; stormwater treatment should not be an afterthought once the project is built. Therefore, the subject document should be revised to provide enough detail on the proposed mitigation alternatives so that we can adequately assess the project's compliance with Provision C.3.

You should also be aware that a new regional municipal stormwater permit (Water Board Order No. R2-2009-0074) was issued on October 14, 2009, to all municipalities and local agencies in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo. Provision C.3. of the new permit specifically requires that stormwater treatment be addressed using Low Impact Development techniques, such as infiltration, harvesting and reuse, evapotranspiration, and biotreatment. 1 Please call or email me if you have any questions.

Sue Ma Water Resources Control Engineer 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 Oakland, CA 94612 510-622-2386 FAX 510-622-2460 [email protected]

2 1524 Channing Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 November 17, 2009

Tom Hodges PAUSD 25 Churchill Ave., Building D Palo Alto, CA 94306

Dear Mr. Hodges,

I would like to comment on several sections of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared for 50 Embarcadero Rd, Palo Alto High School, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Aesthetics. This section does not adequately address the visual impact of the proposed theater on the historic Haymarket and Tower Buildings and the large open expanse of trees (arboretum) that now exists at the Embarcadero entrance.

Based on the orientation of the Tower Building, Paly’s main entrance may appear to be on El Camino Real. However, the official address of the school is 50 Embarcadero Rd. In addition, a far greater number of visitors and students enter the campus through the Embarcadero driveway and/or crosswalk entrances than through the El Camino entrance.

The Haymarket Theater and the Tower Building have always been and should remain the central feature of Paly’s main entrance. Traditionally, these buildings have been nestled within an attractive landscape that includes trees, plants and lawn, or in other words, a tranquil setting that accentuates the buildings’ architectural beauty. A landscaping firm has now been hired (as of October 2009) by the Palo Alto Unified School to create a landscape master plan, a central focus of which will be to further beautify and enhance the school’s entrance, and in particular, these buildings and the nature that surrounds them.

The conclusions of the reviewer are based on incomplete information and therefore cannot be considered conclusive. Two major pieces of information are lacking. First of all, the landscape architect has not yet adequately studied and created designs for the main entrance. Landscape designs of the main entrance that include and do not include the proposed theater have yet to be presented to the public. It is essential that the public and the reviewer be given both types of designs to be able to adequately evaluate the true aesthetic and environmental impact of the proposed new theater on the historic buildings and the character of the main entrance.

In conjunction with the landscape designs of the main entrance, the public and the reviewer needs to be able to see and evaluate one or more potential architectural renderings of the new theater. The reviewer claims that the new theater will not significantly impact the Haymarket or Tower Building, because it will lie 200 ft. from the theater. Merely citing a particular distance, in this case 200 ft, is not enough conclude that there will be no visual impact on the historic structures. Again, the true style, orientation, and size of the theater need to be understood by both the public and reviewer before an adequate statement can be made regarding their environmental impact.

On a separate but related topic, the visual impact of the proposed new theater on the student, staff, and visitor experiences of entering or leaving the campus via the driveway and crosswalk entrances were not discussed in this report. Currently students are treated to a wide-open vista of trees, which extends as far as the Stanford arboretum, when they enter the campus via the crosswalk entrance. This vista will be significantly diminished if the proposed new theater is constructed. Similarly the wide vista of treetops that includes trees near the railroad tracks and across to Town and Country village, will be significantly diminished by visitors, staff and students entering the campus through the driveway entrance. If the new theater is built, the main entrance will forevermore have the feel of a more constricted and confined space.

The arboretum, the entire collection of trees at the entrance that is a learning space and tranquil area for students to walk through and relax, will be diminished by the construction of a theater in the currently proposed location. This arboretum has space for at least 200 trees. Currently, 25 different species of trees grow in this part of campus. At its present size, future generations of students and staff will have room to create native plant gardens and ecological laboratories. There is space for sculptures and other student art. In reducing this large expanse of open space and trees, which is one of the largest and most beautiful urban parking areas in the City of Palo Alto, both the community at large and the student body will lose a valuable resource.

Hydrology. The report does not adequately discuss the difficult problems with drainage on the Paly campus and the limits of the City of Palo Alto’s storm sewer system.

A serious problem with the on-going construction at Paly is the net increase in impervious or nearly impervious surface due to all of the proposed and completed projects. Here is a list of these projects with their approximate dates of completion: a) 2004- Science building completed as a large ONE-story building on the west side of the quad. This building could have been built as two-story building with a much smaller footprint. b) Summer 2007 - quarter acre at the El Camino/Embarcadero entrance paved over for (rarely used) parking c) About 2008 - Football field covered with synthetic (nearly impermeable) turf d) Summer 2009 - Three large palm trees and row of mature healthy Eucalyptus trees were removed between Tower building and El Camino field. Replaced by about 6-7 large black poles that will hold a giant net. e) Expansion of the Embarcadero entrance - loss of a mature sycamore. f) Fall 2009 - El Camino field covered with synthetic turf. g) 2011- Classroom building will replace portables that were on land that was once a large beautiful lawn h) 2011-Media-Arts building will replace portables on space that was once a natural area i) 2012- New Theater will replace land that holds or could hold 15 mature trees and many plants. j) 2013- A new Fitness Center will be built and cover a significant portion of open space between the old gym and the new gym. k) After 2018- The Student Center will be expanded covering more open space between the current student center and the El Camino Field.

Because Palo Alto’s storm sewer has limited capacity, it is essential that stormwater be retained on campus. However, the landscape architect has not generated a proposal for how to keep stormwater on campus. Before stating that the projects will have a less than significant impact on stormwater runoff, the reviewer and the public need to know more specifics of how this retention will be achieved.

Mandatory Findings of Significance. The land losses listed above affect more than simply hydrology.

They result in less nature for students to enjoy during the course of their days on campus. Future generations will have less (if any) open space on which to build. There will be less room for outdoor educational activities such as a native plant garden, compost pile, an organic garden, or various outdoor classrooms. These environmental impacts are given short shrift or not mentioned at all in the report. But they do have a substantial effect on the quality of life for students and staff on the campus. They also give the community less flexibility to deal with further growth in its student population.

Climate change impacts. Climate change is discussed under air quality in the report. However, this is not tied into the land use section of the report.

To reduce the impact of any project on climate change, an essential first step is to study how best to use the land. How can the buildings and land be best used to make the lowest impact on greenhouse gas emissions? This was niether discussed in the report nor has it been adequately explored or addressed by the district in a transparent manner during their planning process. There are alternative designs for the master plan that would have less of an impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The district has failed to prepare and present these plans to the community for evaluation and comparison to the current plan.

Thank you for taking the time to prepare the report and to read these comments. Please keep me apprised as the CEQA process moves forward.

Best regards,

Kirsten Essenmacher

Page 1 of 3

Lesley Lowe

From: Aimee Lopez [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:50 AM To: Lesley Lowe; Cory Barringhaus Cc: 'John Wilson' Subject: FW: CEQA Comments

From: Tom Hodges Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:38 AM To: Aimee Lopez Subject: Fw: CEQA Comments

From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Wed Nov 18 23:12:29 2009 Subject: CEQA Comments

Good Evening,

I would like to submit the following comments in regards to the Palo Alto High School Master Plan, CEQA specifically related to the Transportation/Traffic section.

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Bike cages are generally located at three points in the central area of the campus, including near the gym, near the science building, and near the student center.

There is currently one bike cage near the gym, bike racks near the science building and bike racks near the Haymarket Theatre/Arts Building. Approximately 25-30+ students lock their bikes to the fence along the bike path that runs alongside the Cal Train tracks. It would be helpful if the CEQA document specified how many additional bike parking spaces are required to accommodate growth.

1/29/2010 Page 2 of 3

Their counts seem low and they acknowledged that the PTSA counts were 27% higher (520 vs. 410) as the counts took place during a warmer month. Why weren't these higher numbers used to estimate future needs. They also refer to a TDM program that is run with some variability by volunteers - a PTSA Traffic Safety Representative and members of Paly's Green Team. Is PAUSD planning to organize a program with dedicated staff to insure sustainability?

Mitigation Measure TRAN-2: PAUSD shall integrate the following measures to reduce potential queuing impacts: • Circulate informational flyers to parents and students that discuss on-site circulation patterns and designated parking areas; • Encourage drivers with disabled passengers that would require longer dwell times (i.e., wheelchair users) to use ADA parking spaces for loading/unload; • Use staff to monitor and direct on-site traffic during peak drop-off/pickup times both before and after school (i.e., 7:45 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.).

I would question the effectiveness of informational flyers and the use of staff to monitor and direct on-site traffic. Funding for additional staff resources might be necessary to accomplish this. PTA volunteers CANNOT direct traffic. Our insurance policy explicitly declares that we are not covered for directing traffic.

There are two areas that have potential for conflict between vehicles and bicycles: Churchill at the Castilleja driveway and possibly along Embarcadero near the school entrance. With no stop signs on Churchill, bicycles and vehicles make right turns into the school driveway at the same time in the AM. Bicycles make a right turn from the bike lane on Churchill to the street/driveway at Castilleja. No bike lanes exist along the driveway. During the PM, bikes exit the school along the bike/pedestrian path, turn left and travel the wrong way on Churchill. Bikes cross at Alma and eventually cross Churchill (usually mid block). Bikes use the bike/pedestrian path because there is so much outbound traffic on Churchill making the crosswalk at Castilleja difficult to use.

Paid parking permits are distributed to eligible students. The carpooling program was eliminated last year by Paly staff because it was difficult to monitor. At present,

1/29/2010 Page 3 of 3

the TDM program at Paly is comprised of bike/ped encouragement events that are organized by the PTSA Traffic Safety Rep and the Green Team. Additionally, the Traffic Safety Rep provides advocacy support of engineering improvements to campus and school routes that support alternative modes. Students are encouraged to use the Palo Alto Shuttle. Many do. (Shuttle funding may be in jeopardy with proposed Tier II CPA budget cuts to be considered by City Council Finance Committee in December 2009). The Paly Green Team supports/promotes bicycling/walking/pubic transit as one of their programs, however; there is no group (student/teacher/parent) dedicated to a TDM program at Paly.

Thank you for your consideration of the above comments.

Best regards,

Carol Anderson PTSA Traffic Safety Representative Palo Alto High School

1/29/2010

Attachment B BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment Consent 4

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: November 17, 2009

MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 2009

Call to Order The Board of Education of Palo Alto Unified School District held a Regular Meeting in the Board Room at 25 Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Barb Mitchell, President, called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

Members present: Ms. Barb Mitchell, President Ms. Barbara Klausner, Vice President Ms. Melissa Baten Caswell Mr. Dana Tom Ms. Camille Townsend Mr. Steve Zhou, Student Board Rep, Gunn High School Mr. Jason Willick, Student Board Rep, Palo Alto High School

Adjourn to Closed Session The Board adjourned to closed session pursuant to Government Code 54957 for Employee Evaluation regarding the Superintendent; pursuant to Government Code 54961 for Liability Claims – Ng vs PAUSD; Flusberg vs PAUSD; Miao vs PAUSD; pursuant to Government Code 54957.6 for Conference with Labor Negotiator Dr. Scott Bowers, regarding PAEA, CSEA, and Non-represented groups; pursuant to Government Code 54957 regarding Employee Discipline / Dismissal / Release; and for Student Discipline in Two Cases.

Reconvene in Open Session The Board reconvened in open session at 6:32 p.m. Mitchell announced the board took action, as follows, on three liability claims.

MOTION: It was moved by Townsend, seconded by Baten Caswell, and motion carried 5-0 to issue payment in the amount of $436.41 in Ng vs PAUSD.

MOTION: It was moved by Townsend, seconded by Baten Caswell, and motion carried 5-0 to issue payment in the amount of $787.09 in Flusberg vs PAUSD.

MOTION: It was moved by Townsend, seconded by Baten Caswell, and motion carried 5-0 to reject the claim in Miao vs PAUSD.

Approval of Agenda Order MOTION: It was moved by Baten Caswell; seconded by Townsend; and motion carried 5-0 to approve the agenda order.

Student Board Representatives Willick, of Palo Alto High School, reported homecoming week is ongoing; a rally was held during advisory and showcased a new Paly fight song; the quarter ended last week; there is online reporting by teachers; and he commented on the impact at Paly from the recent suicide.

Zhou, of Gunn High School, reported on girls’ water polo; homecoming was the previous week and students worked around the weather; student government was reviewing issues from the event; discussed the recent suicide and student-led promotion of communication among students and adults

Staff and Student Successes Skelly noted the 120 commended high school students for the National Merit Scholarship included in the packet. He also commented on violin performances of Alexi Kenney.

Skelly commented on the continuing work on the issue of suicide, impressed with how students at Gunn are working with staff. Staff is attending meetings on the state budget, working on reductions with the leadership team remaining faithful to the values, have reached tentative agreements with the bargaining units and hope to bring agreements to the Board on Approved: November 17, 2009 Regular Meeting October 27, 2009 Page 1 MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 2009 November 10, 2009, action for on November 17; are pleased to work with Triona Gogarty (PAEA) and Jeremy Sakakihara (CSEA). Skelly spoke of his cycling to “Scaremeadow” and other schools with Townsend and Klausner. Staff is researching the achievement gap question raised at the previous meeting and will be providing information on November 10, 2009. Skelly then introduced Ann Durkin, new director of technology, who comes to the district from HP.

Durkin noted she was thrilled to be part of the district and that she is looking forward to meeting everyone.

Golton showed phots from walk/cycle day at the various schools, the Terman science fair, and Nixon tree planting. The construction update included the Citizens’ Oversight Committee meeting, the El Camino fields at Paly, the Gunn pool and dedication, and the Gunn industrial arts building.

Consent Calendar MOTION: It was moved by Tom, seconded by Townsend, and motion carried 5-0 to approve the consent calendar including certificated and classified personnel actions, warrants of September 2009, the Uniform Complaint (Williams Settlement and Valenzuela/CAHSEE Lawsuit Settlement) Quarterly Report for July 1-September 30, 2009, Addendums No. 3, 4, and 5 with Gelfand Partners, and the renewal of Student Teaching/Intern Agreements. The minutes for October 13, 2009, were pulled for separate discussion.

Klausner requested the minutes be changed to pull the phrase “in the not yet proficient category” from the eighth bullet on page two, feeling the term is confusing.

MOTION: It was moved by Klausner; seconded by Townsend, and motion carried 5-0 to approve the revised minutes with the correction as noted above.

Public Hearing Mitchell opened the public hearing. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative and Duncan MacMillan spoke about the traffic data presented in the report, referring to page 80, noting it only addresses half the Declaration Draft Initial traffic issues. He felt miranda needs to be addressed now or it won’t be done for years. He asked for this priority move up Study/Mitigated Negative on the list. Declaration for 780 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, CA (Gunn High Penny Ellson spoke about mitigations and the need to address car trips, noting we can’t expect load shift by continuing what School) is already being done. She would like to look at other trip reductions. Bike parking spaces are needed; car parking is probably underestimated as well. She referred the Board and staff to the document she sent.

Mitchell closed the public hearing.

Public Hearing Mitchell opened the public hearing. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative and Penny Ellson indicated the same issues apply to Paly. The left turn pocket into the school needs to be reconsidered, same Declaration Draft Initial issues for bike parking, car parking, and supervision. Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for 50 Embarcadero Mitchell closed the public hearing. Road, Palo Alto, CA (Palo Alto High School)

Information Skelly indicated this is the second of two reports. Common thanked Garrison for gathering the data on high schools. The Strategic Plan Goals and PowerPoint presentation reviewed: Accountability Results • Purpose of the report • Strategic Plan Goals 1 and 2 • The UC/CSU a-g course requirements • Comparisons of Selected CA High Schools – percentage of students completing the a-g courses • Number of students and percentage of those meeting a-g requirements for 2008 and 2009 • Number of African American and Hispanics students and percentage meeting a-g requirements for 2008 and 2009 • Number of students and percentage of those missing 1 or 2 a-g course requirements • College Board SAT Exam mean scores and participation rates for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 for Critical Reading, Math, and Writing • SAT comparison for class of 2009 vs California and national for Critical Reading, Math, and Writing • 2008 SAT Rankings: 10 Top CA High Schools for Critical Reading, Math, and Writing (including class of 2009 for Gunn and Paly) • National Merit Students commended or semifinalists for Gunn and Paly 2008, 2009, and 2010 • AP Exams Taken, May 2009 Results for both high schools • AP Exam Scores from May 2007, 2008, and 2009 • 2008 AP Rankings comparisons for selected California High Schools • California Standards Tests proficient and advanced for science (biology, chemistry, physics) for 2007, 2008, and 2009 • California Standards Tests proficient and advanced for history/social science (social science, world history, and US history) for 2007, 2008, and 2009 Approved: November 17, 2009 Regular Meeting October 27, 2009 Page 2 MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 2009 • California Standards Tests proficient and advanced for mathematics (algebra I, geometry, algebra II) for 2007, 2008, 2009) • CAHSEE – students fulfilling all requirements for graduation except the CAHSEE: 2006 – 0; 2007 – 1 (who has since graduated); 2008 – 0; and 2009 – 1

Mitchell congratulated students, parents, and teachers for these accomplishments. Board member comments included appreciation for progress on a-g requirements; noted the difficulty of the comparisons in light of the recent suicide; noted test scores are one piece of the puzzle and perhaps have an outsized significance; asked about classification of ethnicity and the recent change; asked about percent of students taking at least one AP test; inquired whether students are encouraged to take AP classes; asked if trends for AP score percentages are the same for individual classes; noted scores are different depending on the class, asked if AP classes taken are outside of PAUSD; asked what can be done to monitor a-g requirements for African American and Hispanic students; asked what is being done to scaffold these students so they can do better; noted the numbers are phenomenal, students need to realize how above average they are; would like a visual for students so they can understand how they look compared to the state and nation; asked how well the District is doing with data management; would like to extrapolate how many are taking at least one AP class; noted students are incredibly accomplished; commented on the complex issue of overstretching and balance while still encouraging students to take AP classes—need to address individual students; asked if student’s AP scores have been correlated with student’s grades in the classroom; asked if the data is broken out for gender; student reps asked what is being done to help the students not passing CAHSEE; asked about Newsweek’s poll; asked about students not meeting a-g requirements and whether teacher advisors could help keep them on track; would like to ask principals about course offerings and what input is coming from students; and asked about students taking a-g courses through outside sources.

Information Skelly indicated this item was discussed at the October 13, 2009, regular meeting. Golton said staff is going back to the Update on Project to Install drawing board based on that discussion and further discussion with site staff. Future meetings have been scheduled and Bleachers at Palo Alto High will be publicized for the public. This will include the landscaping plan for the Paly campus. The bleacher plans have been School pulled from review by DSA. The plan is for replacement in summer 2011. The visitors’ bleachers will be addressed this summer.

Public Comment Catherine Martineau from Canopy offered help in care and enhancement of trees. She spoke of her conversations with staff in regard to the bleacher project. Canopy did not approve the approach presented.

Sharon Kelly, also from Canopy, explained her role in recent advice offered to the District. This had a positive effect at Gunn. She would like to provide more input for the El Camino fields and bleacher projects at Paly.

Board members comments included ongoing community membership; asked for clarification of which items will be discussed by the landscape committee; thanked staff for listening to the concerns and for looking for a compromise to address everyone’s needs; asked for clarification of visiting bleacher timeline; and asked for 3D renderings of proposals.

Skelly thanked Jacqueline McEvoy, principal, and noted staff will look more comprehensively at the plan.

Open Forum Public Comment No one asked to address the Board.

Action This item was discussed at the October 13, 2009, regular meetings. Springboard to Kindergarten Board comments included the value of networking; appreciated the generosity of the donors; noted it represents a leveling up for kindergartners and assessment of results; and noted this is multi prong approach to the achievement gap.

Motion: It was moved by Tom; seconded by Baten Caswell; and motion carried 5-0 to approve the Springboard to Kindergarten three-year pilot program.

Discussion Davis commented on what the summer school programs provide for students. Staff would like to expand the secondary Summary of the 2009 Summer program for the high school so students can work on a-g courses. Barbara Lancon, coordinator, thanked all who worked so School Program and Proposal for hard over the summer on these classes. She outlined the sites, dates, and tuition. She noted the state continues to cut the 2010 Program funding, so an increase is being requested as well as a sliding scale fees for intervention programs. Pat Dawson, professional development, spoke about the 2009 literacy program and progress of students. Melissa Hauer spoke about the math program.

Board member comments included asking about the intervention program and how parents will be informed about financial aid; asked if financial aid in the budget; asked about varying numbers from report to budget; asked about matched scores being tracked in the data systems; noted this would show the lasting impact and how we are doing in achieving the strategic plan goals; asked about math pre and post-tests; asked if the Barron Park college bound program being used in intervention; support tracking the long term results; asked about state restrictions and how they are being addressed; asked if intervention programs would be the same; noted it was good to see high school courses, being addressed; asked if there will be financial aid requests; asked for the dates for longer high school classes; asked if principals see a difference in their

Approved: November 17, 2009 Regular Meeting October 27, 2009 Page 3 MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 2009 students in the fall and how it is discussed; would like to see principals be able to discuss that data; asked if expenses came in under the budgeted amount; expressed comfort with the proposal to charge a fee, but offer assistance; noted the significance of tying in CST scores into the assessment picture; asked if other assessments can be developed through summer school; would like to hear how CST data can be used starting with this past summer and perhaps the prior year’s summer school testing data; suggested summer school might need to be longer; looked forward to supporting the proposal at the next meeting; appreciated the role the program plays; supported the comments about using the data to understand the impact in attaining goals; would like to see whether it could be expanded; and noted principals spoke well of these resources.

Discussion Golton noted there is an item for each high school to meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The items will Notice of Intent to Adopt a not return to the board until later in the year after input has been received. Hodges noted this is time for the Board to add Mitigated Negative and their comments. All comments received will be compiled and possible amendments will be considered. Declaration Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Corey Barringhouse, ESA Associates, noted they looked at both of the master plans and the impact of their implementation Declaration for 780 Arastradero to find impacts and how best to mitigate them to make them less than significant. He noted the 30-day public review is in Road, Palo Alto, CA (Gunn High progress. All comments will be responded to. Mitigation measures will be monitored. School) Board members comments included having the Sustainable Schools Committee review the information; noted the high speed rail could impact the plan and asked how does the District will react; asked about eminent domain; asked whether staff have Ms. Ellson’s letter; noted support for requests of Canopy; asked if oral comments are included; and asked whether there will be cost information about mitigation costs in the final report.

Discussion Public Comment Notice of Intent to Adopt a Kirsten Essenmacher felt there was insufficient information about the public hearing and asked for two additional weeks for Mitigated Negative and comments. She expressed concern about the footprint of buildings vs landscapes. Declaration Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Board members comments included a question about noticing practices and looking for multiple ways to send the Declaration for 50 Embarcadero information outbound; and suggested the extension be advertised. Road, Palo Alto, CA (Palo Alto High School)

Discussion Mak noted that an excess of $76,700 in orders for Smartboards have been received. Bid results produced one bidder. The Award of Bid for the Purchase of bid is consistent with past work done by this vendor. Smartboards Board member comments included asking why there was only one bidder. It was agreed to bring the item back on consent.

Action Skelly noted the Board received information on costs. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Among Basic Aid School Board member comments included asking about those costs; would like numbers included in future requests to reconsider if Districts in San Mateo and Santa the costs go higher; noted this was not an annual MOU, but can be canceled on 30 days notice. Clara Counties MOTION: It was moved by Klausner, seconded by Townsend, and motion carried 5-0 to approve the Memorandum of Understanding Among Basic Aid School Districts in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.

Action MOTION: It was moved by Baten Caswell; seconded by Tom, and motion carried 5-0 to ratify the recommendation Stipulated Expulsions (Two for stipulated suspended expulsion for the remainder of the 2009-10 school year for student 01-0910, and Cases) that the Terms of Expulsion be fully implemented

MOTION: It was moved by Baten Caswell; seconded by Tom, and motion carried 5-0 to ratify the recommendation for stipulated suspended expulsion for the remainder of the 2009-10 school year for student 02-0910, and that the Terms of Expulsion be fully implemented.

Board Members’ Reports Townsend noted the City-School Liaison meeting would cover student mental health, the library bond, and technology at City and District libraries.

Baten Caswell commended students and staff at Terman for their recent science fair.

Closed Session The Board adjourned to closed session at 9:55 p.m. to complete business from earlier in the evening as noted above.

Adjournment The Board reconvened in open session at 11:30 p.m. Mitchell announced the Board took no action. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.

______Secretary to the Board

Approved: November 17, 2009 Regular Meeting October 27, 2009 Page 4 BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Action 14

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

TO: Dr. Kevin Skelly, Superintendent of Schools

FROM: Bob Golton, Co-CBO and Bond Program Manager

SUBJECT: Authorization to Solicit Bids for the Palo Alto High School Multi-use Fields

This item was discussed by the Board of Education at its meeting of January 26, 2010. It is being presented for action at this meeting. Additions and changes to this document are shown in italics.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Budget Trends and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND

On March 10, 2009, the Board of Education authorized staff to solicit bids for the construction of the Palo Alto High School Multi-use Fields in anticipation of DSA approval and construction beginning in June 2009. Late DSA approval on the El Camino field project had required staff to defer the construction period for this project until summer 2010, since the campus needed at least one field in operation during the summer and early fall of 2009.

The scope of the project has been expanded substantially since the Board of Education last saw this item in March 2009. The project now includes extensive renovation and improvement expense to the south parking lot across from the football stadium. In March 2009, the work was going to involve a new sidewalk and improvements to the handicap parking stalls. Now, the work in this lot includes new paving, curbs, walkways, a bio-swale, and 27 additional trees and irrigation.

This parking lot work was added to the project as mitigation for an earlier proposal to eliminate thirteen sycamore trees to make room for the bleachers in the football stadium. The football stadium renovation project has been referred back to the site Facilities Steering Committee. It is anticipated this parking lot mitigation will be needed as part of future projects on campus. The Facilities Steering Committee agreed to incorporate this work into the Multi-use Field project due to its adjacent location to the lot. This work is not a bid alternate, because it is now required as part of the project design.

In addition to the above, a major bid alternate is being added: new fencing, trees, and landscaping along Churchill Avenue. This work will greatly improve the appearance of the campus and also provide additional mitigation efforts relating to tree removal. The landscaping work included in this project has been reviewed by the Paly landscape sub-committee during the December 1, 2009, and February 2, 2010, meetings and now reflects their input on the design and recommendations on tree selections.

There are other bid alternates including (1) batting cages for baseball, (2) new scoreboards, (3) new bleachers, and (4) other athletic equipment to support the baseball, softball, and soccer field use.

The Facilities Steering Committee will review project bids once received so they can evaluate them and make recommendations to staff on which bid alternates they would like to award and to confirm whether additional funding from the Palo Alto High School reserve funds should be part of their recommendation. The Facilities Steering Committee recommendations will be brought to the Board of Education for approval along with the authorization to award the contract.

The Multi-use Field project will provide new baseball, softball and soccer fields, and associated facilities to the Palo Alto High School campus. Construction documents are complete and have been approved by DSA. A site plan is attached.

PROPOSAL It is proposed the Board of Education authorize staff to solicit bids from a pool of prequalified contractors beginning in February 2010 for the Multi-use Field project at Palo Alto High School.

FISCAL IMPACT This project is a multi-funded project. On December 9, 2008, the total project budget for this field project was approved in the amount of $4,078,054. This budget was developed to be funded by four different sources of funds:

Fund Source Project Budget Measure A Bond Fund $752,063 Bond Interest $2,250,000 Building Projects Fund $550,386 Planned Maintenance Fund $525,605 Total Budget $4,078,054

The construction budget for the Multi-use Field Project totals $3,312,683, inclusive of a 10% change order contingency. The current construction estimate for the scope of work approved by the Board in December 9, 2008, is $3,392,961. Adding in the estimated cost of the parking lot renovation work of $157,705, the total base bid construction cost is currently $3,550,666 which is $237,983 over the original construction budget. Given the current favorable bidding environment, it is unknown whether or not the actual base bids will be over budget.

As noted above, the Facilities Steering Committee will review the bids once received in March 2010, and will provide a recommendation at that time to staff and the Board on the possible award of alternates and whether any augmentation of the project budget is required.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Board of Education authorize staff to solicit bids from a pool of prequalified contractors for the Palo Alto High School Multi-use Field project.

BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Action 15

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

TO: Kevin Skelly, Superintendent

FROM: Linda Common, Assistant Superintendent – Administrative Services

SUBJECT: Review and Ratification of Single Plans for Student Achievement (SPSA) (formerly School Improvement Plans) and School and Library Improvement Block Grant Budgets (formerly SIP Budgets) for 2009-10 for Gunn and Palo Alto High Schools

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Academic Excellence and Learning

BACKGROUND In accordance with regulations governing schools with School-Based Coordinated Programs, each school must submit a school plan and School and Library Improvement Block Grant budget annually to the Board of Education for ratification. Based on school needs assessments, self-studies, and student achievement data, these plans formulate goals and objectives for priorities developed in the above process and staff development plans to support implementation. Full school plans are available for review at each school site.

SB 374, which amended Education Code sections 64000 and 64001, requires each school to identify the total amount of funds allocated to each school in the Consolidated Application, including funds budgeted for centralized services. A list of proposed expenditures was included with each 2009-10 Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA).

The annual objectives and budgets presented here have been approved by each School Site Council.

High school principals presented the 2009-10 Single Plans for Student Achievement for discussion at the January 26, 2010, Board Study Session.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Board ratify the school plans and School and Library Improvement Block Grant budgets as presented. BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Discussion 16

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

TO: Dr. Kevin Skelly, Superintendent of Schools

FROM: Bob Golton, Co-CBO and Bond Program Manager

SUBJECT: Authorization to Issue Addendum No. 6 to Deems Lewis McKinley Architecture for Initial Studies for the Football Stadium Renovations at Palo Alto High School

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Budget Trends and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND On August 26, 2009, the Board of Education approved the selection of Deems Lewis McKinley Architecture (DLM) to provide design services for Gunn and Palo Alto high schools.

By request of the Facilities Steering Committees for Palo Alto High School, the following augmentation to Deems Lewis McKinley’s scope of work is proposed:

1. Initial studies to develop conceptual plans for the renovation and improvement of the football stadium at Palo Alto High School. The project will be expanded to include new restrooms, concessions, ticket booth, track improvements, and new bleacher sections.

The amount for design services proposed by DLM is a not to exceed amount of $25,000 to perform these studies.

PROPOSAL It is proposed the Board of Education authorize staff to execute Addendum No. 6 with Deems Lewis McKinley Architecture in the not to exceed amount of $25,000 for conceptual plans to renovate and provide improvements to the football stadium at Palo Alto High School.

FISCAL IMPACT Funding to provide conceptual plans for the football stadium will come from the Palo Alto High School Bleacher Replacement project, which in the future will be renamed the Football Stadium Renovation project. This project is funded with Measure A funds, and there are adequate funds in this project to cover the proposed $25,000 fee.

RECOMMENDATION After discussion at this meeting, it will be recommended at the next meeting of the Board of Education that staff be authorized to execute Addendum No. 6 in the amount of $25,000 to perform initial studies for the Football Stadium Renovation at Palo Alto High School.

BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Discussion 17

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

TO: Kevin Skelly, Ph.D., Superintendent

FROM: Scott J. Bowers, Ed.D., Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources

SUBJECT: Changes to Board Bylaws 9270 – Conflict of Interest

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Governance and Communication

BACKGROUND As the filing official for agencies within Santa Clara County, the Office of County Counsel has recently conducted a full review of all conflict of interest policies. At the suggestion of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for Santa Clara County, Human Resources has updated Board Bylaw 9270 (BB 9270) to correct disclosure categories and to update job titles for employees who are required to annually file a Form 700.

See the attached bylaws for changes to BB 9270.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Board of Education approve the proposed changes to BB 9270.

Bylaws of the Board BB 9270

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Incompatible Activities

Board of Education members shall not engage in any employment or activity which is inconsistent with, incompatible with, in conflict with or inimical to the Board member's duties as an officer of the district. (Government Code 1126)

Conflict of Interest Code

The district's conflict of interest code shall be comprised of the terms of 2CCR 18730 and any amendments to it adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission, together with a district attachment specifying designated positions and the specific types of disclosure statements required for each position.

Upon direction by the code reviewing body, the Board shall review the district's conflict of interest code in even-numbered years. If no change in the code is required, the district shall submit by October 1 a written statement to that effect to the code reviewing body. If a change in the code is necessitated by changed circumstances, the district shall submit an amended code to the code reviewing body. (Government Code 87306.5)

When a change in the district's conflict of interest code is necessitated by changed circumstances, such as the creation of new designated positions, amendments or revisions, the changed code shall be submitted to the code reviewing body within 90 days. (Government Code 87306)

When reviewing and preparing conflict of interest codes, the district shall provide officers, employees, consultants and members of the community adequate notice and a fair opportunity to present their views. (Government Code 87311)

If a Board member or designated employee determines that he/she has a financial interest in a decision, as described in Government Code 87103, this determination shall be disclosed. The member shall be disqualified from voting unless his/her participation is legally required. (2 CCR 18700)

Statements of economic interests submitted to the district by designated employees in accordance with the conflict of interest code shall be available for public inspection and reproduction. (Government Code 81008)

Financial Interest

Board members and designated employees shall not be financially interested in any contract made by the Board or in any contract they make in their capacity as Board members or designated employees. (Government Code 1090)

1 BB 9270

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (continued)

A Board member shall not be considered to be financially interested in a contract if his/her interest includes, but is not limited to, any of the following: (Government Code 1091.5)

1. That of an officer who is being reimbursed for his/her actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of an official duty 2. That of a recipient of public services generally provided by the public body or board of which he/she is a member, on the same terms and conditions as if he or she were not a member of the board 3. That of a landlord or tenant of the contracting party if such contracting party is the federal government or any federal department or agency, this state or an adjoining state, any department or agency of this state or an adjoining state, any county or city of this state or an adjoining state, or any public corporation or special, judicial or other public district of this state or an adjoining state unless the subject matter of such contract is the property in which such officer or employee has such interest as landlord or tenant in which even his/her interest shall be deemed a remote interest within the meaning of, and subject to, the provisions of Government Code 1091 4. That of a spouse of an officer or employee of the district if his/her spouse's employment or officeholding has existed for at least one year prior to his/her election or appointment 5. That of a nonsalaried member of a nonprofit corporation, provided that such interest is disclosed to the Board at the time of the first consideration of the contract, and provided further that such interest is noted in its official records 6. That of a noncompensated officer of a nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation which, as one of its primary purposes, supports the functions of the nonprofit board or to which the school Board has a legal obligation to give particular consideration, and provided further that such interest is noted in its official records 7. That of a person receiving salary, per diem, or reimbursement for expenses from a governmental entity, unless the contract directly involves the department of the government entity that employs the officer or employee, provided that such interest is disclosed to the Board at the time of consideration of the contract, and provided further that such interest is noted in its official records 8. That of an attorney of the contracting party or that of an owner, officer, employee or agent of a firm which renders, or has rendered, service to the contracting party in the capacity of stockbroker, insurance agent, insurance broker, real estate agent, or real estate broker, if these individuals have not received and will not receive remuneration, consideration, or a commission as a result of the contract and if these individuals have an ownership interest of less than 10 percent in the law practice or firm, stock brokerage firm, insurance firm or real estate firm

BB 9270

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (continued)

In addition, a Board member or employee shall not be deemed to be interested in a contract made pursuant to competitive bidding under a procedure established by law if his/her sole interest is that of an officer, director, or employee of a bank or savings and loan association with which a party to the contract has the relationship of borrower or depositor, debtor or creditor. (Government Code 1091.5)

A Board member shall not be deemed to be financially interested in a contract if he/she has only a remote interest in the contract and if the remote interest is disclosed during a Board meeting and noted in the official Board minutes. The affected Board member shall not vote or debate on the matter or attempt to influence any other Board member to enter into the contract. Remote interests are specified in Government Code 1091(b); they include, but are not limited to, the interest of a parent in the earnings of his/her minor child. (Government Code 1091)

A Board member may enter into a contract if the rule of necessity or legally required participation applies as defined in Government Code 87101.

Even if there is no prohibited or remote interest, a Board member shall abstain from voting on personnel matters that uniquely affect a relative of the Board member. A Board member may vote, however, on collective bargaining agreements and personnel matters that affect a class of employees to which the relative belongs. "Relative" means an adult who is related to the person by blood or affinity within the third degree, as determined by the common law, or an individual in an adoptive relationship within the third degree. (Education Code 35107)

A relationship within the third degree includes the individual's parents, grandparents and great-grandparents, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, and the similar family of the individual's spouse unless the individual is widowed or divorced.

Disqualification for Board Members Who Manage Public Investments

A Board member who manages public investments pursuant to Government Code 87200 and who has a financial interest in a decision shall, upon identifying a conflict or potential conflict of interest and immediately prior to the consideration of the matter, do all of the following:

1. Publicly identify the financial interest that gives rise to the conflict or potential conflict of interest in detail sufficient to be understood by the public, except that disclosure of the exact street address of a residence is not required. (Government Code 87105) 3

BB 9270

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (continued)

2. Recuse himself/herself from discussing and voting on the matter, or otherwise acting in violation of Government Code 87100. This Board member shall not be counted toward achieving a quorum while the item is discussed. (Government Code 87105; 2 CCR 18702.5)

3. Leave the room until after the discussion, vote and any other disposition of the matter is concluded, unless the matter has been placed on the portion of the agenda reserved for uncontested matters. (Government Code 87105)

If the item is on the consent calendar, the Board member must recuse himself/herself from discussing or voting on that matter, but the Board member is not required to leave the room during the consent calendar. (2 CCR 18702.5)

(cf. 3430 - Investing)

The Board member may speak on the issue during the time that the general public speaks on the issue. The Board member shall recuse himself/herself from voting on the matter and leave the dais to speak from the same area as members of the public. He/she may listen to the public discussion of the matter with members of the public. (Government Code 87105; 2 CCR 18702.5)

If the Board’s decision is made during closed session, the public identification may be made orally during the open session before the Board goes into closed session and shall be limited to a declaration that his/her recusal is because of a conflict of interest pursuant to Government Code 87100. The Board member shall not be present when the decision is considered in closed session or knowingly obtain or review a recording or any other non-public information regarding the Board’s decision. (2 CCR 18702.5)

Gifts

Board members and designated employees may accept gifts only under the conditions and limitations specified in Government Code 89503 and 2 CCR 18730.

The limitations on gifts do not apply to wedding gifts and gifts exchanged between individuals on birthdays, holidays and other similar occasions, provided that the gifts exchanged are not substantially disproportionate in value. (Government Code 89503)

Gifts of travel and related lodging and subsistence shall be subject to the prevailing gift limitation except as described in Government Code 89506.

4 A gift of travel does not include travel provided by the district for Board members and designated employees. (Government Code 89506) BB 9270

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (continued)

Honoraria

Board members and designated employees shall not accept any honorarium, which is defined as any payment made in consideration for any speech given, article published, or attendance at any public or private gathering, in accordance with law. (Government Code 89501, 89502)

The term honorarium does not include: (Government Code 89501)

1. Earned income for personal services customarily provided in connection with a bona fide business, trade or profession unless the sole or predominant activity of the business, trade or profession is making speeches

2. Any honorarium which is not used and, within 30 days after receipt, is either returned to the donor or delivered to the district for donation into the general fund without being claimed as a deduction from income for tax purposes

APPENDIX DESIGNATED POSITIONS/DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES

It has been determined that persons occupying the following positions manage public investments and shall file a full statement of economic interests pursuant to Government Code 87200:

Board of Education Members Superintendent of Schools

1. Persons occupying the following positions are designated employees in Category 1: Assistant/Associate Superintendent Purchasing Agent

Designated persons in this category must report:

a. Interests in real property located entirely or partly within district boundaries, or within two miles of district boundaries or of any land owned or used by the district. Such interests include any leasehold, beneficial or ownership interest or option to acquire such interest in real property. b. Investments or business positions in or income from sources which: 5 (1) Are engaged in the acquisition or disposal of real property within the district BB 9270

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (continued)

(2) Are contractors or subcontractors which are or have been within the past two years engaged in work or services of the type used by the district or (3) Manufacture or sell supplies, books, machinery or equipment of the type used by the district

2. Persons occupying the following positions are designated employees in Category 2: Director Principal Assistant Principal Maintenance and Operations Director Program Coordinator Project Specialist Supervisor Dean of Students

Designated persons in this category must report investments or business positions in or income from sources which:

a. Are contractors or subcontractors engaged in work or services of the type used by the department which the designated person manages or directs, or b. Manufacture or sell supplies, books, machinery or equipment of the type used by the department which the designated person manages or directs. For the purposes of this category, a principal's department is his/her entire school.

3. Consultants are designated employees who must disclose financial interests as determined on a case-by-case basis by the Superintendent or designee. The Superintendent or designee's written determination shall include a description of the consultant's duties and a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements based upon that description. All such determinations are public records and shall be retained for public inspection along with this conflict of interest code.

A consultant is an individual who, pursuant to a contract with the district, makes a governmental decision whether to: (2 CCR 18701)

a. Approve a rate, rule or regulation b. Adopt or enforce a law

BB 9270

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (continued)

c. Issue, deny, suspend or revoke a permit, license, application, certificate, approval, order or similar authorization or entitlement d. Authorize the district to enter into, modify or renew a contract that requires district approval e. Grant district approval to a contract or contract specifications which require district approval and in which the district is a party f. Grant district approval to a plan, design, report, study or similar item g. Adopt or grant district approval of district policies, standards or guidelines

A consultant is also an individual who, pursuant to a contract with the district, serves in a staff capacity with the district and in that capacity participates in making a governmental decision as defined in 2 CCR 18702.2 or performs the same or substantially all the same duties for the district that would otherwise be performed by an individual holding a position specified in the district's Conflict of Interest Code. (2 CCR 18701)

Legal Reference: EDUCATION CODE 1006 Qualifications for holding office 35107 School district employees 35230-35240 Corrupt practices 35233 Prohibitions applicable to members of governing boards 35239 Compensation for board members in districts under 70 ADA GOVERNMENT CODE 1090-1098 Prohibitions applicable to specified officers 1125-1129 Incompatible activities 81000-91015 Political Reform Act of 1974, especially: 82011 Code reviewing body 82019 Definition of designated employee 82028 Definition of gifts 82030 Definition of income 87100-87103.6 General prohibitions 87200-87210 Disclosure 87300-87313 Conflict of interest code 87500 Statements of economic interests 89501-89503 Honoraria and gifts 91000-91014 Enforcement CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 2 18110-18997 Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, especially: 18702.5 Public identification of a conflict of interest for Section 87200 filers COURT DECISIONS Thorpe v. Long Beach Community College District, (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th. 655 Kunec v. Brea Redevelopment Agency, (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 511 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS 7 86 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 138(2003) 85 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 60 (2002) BB 9270

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (continued)

Legal Reference (continued): 82 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 83 (1999) 81 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 327 (1998) 80 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 320 (1997) 69 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 255 (1986) 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 171 (1985) 65 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 606 (1982)

Management Resources: WEB SITES Fair Political Practices Commission: http://www.fppc.ca.gov

Bylaw PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

8 BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment: Discussion 18

PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date: 02.09.10

TO: Board of Education

FROM: Kevin Skelly, Superintendent

SUBJECT: 2010 California School Boards Association (CSBA) Delegate Assembly Election

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Governance and Communication

BACKGROUND The Board votes for delegates as seats open for election or reelection. Palo Alto Unified School District is served by Region 20, Santa Clara County. There are eleven candidates for six vacancies in Region 20. Candidates will serve two-year terms beginning April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2012. Region 20 candidates are (* denotes incumbent):

Frank Biehl East Side Union HSD* Cynthia Chang Los Gatos-Saratoga Jt. Union HSD* Michael A. Gipe Saratoga Union SD Judy Hannemann Mountain View-Los Altos Union HSD* Esau Herrera Alum Rock Union EDS Patricia Martinez-Roach East Side Union HSD Nancy Newkirk Sunnyvale SD Kathleen Sullivan Morgan Hill USD* Buu Thai Franklin McKinley SD Dana Tom Palo Alto USD* Ellen Wheeler Mountain View Whisman SD

Materials from CSBA are included.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Board choose up to six candidates.