Document: Final Pre-Close Out Letter with Attachments (dated July 23, 2026) From: Sonal Aggarwal, Planner III, San Mateo County Planning & Building To: Bailey, Director of Facilities, Peninsula School Analyzed by: Kit Factory, July 25, 2026
This is the Pre-Application Workshop summary letter — it closes out the pre-application phase (PRE2025-00012) by compiling public comments, agency requirements, and staff guidance before the school submits a formal Use Permit Amendment application. This is NOT an approval. It explicitly states it "is not to render a decision on the merits of this project" and is "not intended to serve as a substitute for future staff analysis."
Staff's preliminary position: the formal application "could be exempt from CEQA based on Class 14, Section 15314, Minor Additions to school." However, they hedge: "a formal determination will be made by Staff after receiving traffic study and analyzing the anticipated impacts."
The formal application will go to the Planning Commission. That decision can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors.
The letter lays out a comprehensive punch list the school must address:
The letter includes 11 neighbor comment letters (Attachment D) from residents on Berkeley, Colby, and Peninsula. Key commenters:
| Commenter | Address | Key Arguments |
|---|---|---|
| Tom Kemp | 570 Berkeley | Berkeley gate safety, lack of traffic analysis, no sidewalks, drainage, demands comment period extension |
| Barbara Gottesman & Michael Mitgang | 626 Berkeley | Flag lot directly opposite proposed gate, emergency access concerns, why is expansion necessary? |
| Mitch & Daren Tuchman | 640 Berkeley | Directly across from East Campus, 1973 ROW obligations, Colby rear access abuse, setback reduction compounds Berkeley impact |
| Anas Osman & Suzan Halabi | 650 Berkeley | Most aggressive letter — 7 formal legal demands, breach of Feb 2025 written commitment (school promised solid fence, now proposing gate), "bait and switch," PG&E fire risk, stormwater, CEQA compliance, demand for indemnification |
| Brent Brown | 680 Berkeley | Camera data showing traffic peaks during school hours, Colby gate precedent, dispersal vs. consolidation argument, 1973 widening covenants |
| Susan Brazeal | 920 Colby | Lives directly across from Colby gate, daily blockages, Sheriff called for tickets, school can't manage current traffic — how will they manage 28% more? |
| Ray He | 1000 Colby | PRA requests filed, comment period extension request |
| Michelle MacKenzie | 980 Berkeley | Speeding, native tree removal, flooding |
| Tosin & Lola Falasinnu | 750 Berkeley | Pedestrian/biker safety |
| Barbara Burgelin | 524 Berkeley | 63 more cars = huge impact, Colby gate should close, Peninsula Way circle should be primary, 1973 ROW agreement |
This is the single most important issue. Staff's preliminary position that the project "could be exempt from CEQA based on Class 14, Section 15314, Minor Additions to school" is legally tenuous for several reasons:
Class 14 has strict limits. CEQA Guidelines §15314 exempts "minor additions to existing schools within existing school grounds where the addition does not increase original student capacity by more than 25% or ten classrooms, whichever is less." The proposed increase is from 223 to 286 (28.25% actual increase). Even from the permitted 240, going to 286 is 19.2%. Staff needs to clarify whether "original student capacity" means the current enrollment (223), the permitted cap (240), or some earlier figure — because 28.25% blows through the 25% threshold.
Building 1 (Rainbowland) may be a historical resource. If it qualifies under CRHR Criterion 3 (which staff acknowledged requires further analysis), its demolition triggers a mandatory finding of significant impact under CEQA §21084.1. A categorical exemption cannot apply when there's a reasonable possibility of significant environmental effect (the "unusual circumstances" exception, CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(c)).
Traffic impacts could independently defeat the exemption. If the traffic study reveals significant impacts (congestion, safety, emergency access), the unusual circumstances exception kicks in again.
The 1973 conditions suggest cumulative impact. Streets documented at 14-18 feet of pavement vs. 24 feet standard, combined with 50 years of non-compliance with the road improvement condition, creates a baseline of degradation that any intensification will compound.
Recommended action: File a comment during the formal application process specifically challenging the Class 14 exemption. Argue that the project exceeds the 25% threshold (from actual enrollment), involves potential historical resources (Rainbowland), and the traffic/safety concerns constitute unusual circumstances. Request a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) at minimum, or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if warranted.
The 1973 condition (ZA-UP-69-74, Condition 5) requires the school to enter a "recording type agreement guaranteeing eventual construction of standard street improvements on all sides of the property." Staff acknowledges this has been outstanding for 50 years.
Why this matters now: - The condition was explicitly tied to "any increase in the usage of the property" per the County Engineer - A 28% enrollment increase unambiguously triggers it - The school's formal application must either comply with the condition (dedicate ROW, fund improvements) or request its removal — which requires DPW review and a traffic study showing no need - This is leverage: either the school pays for street widening (very expensive) or proves traffic isn't an issue (unlikely given current conditions)
Recommended action: File a formal PRA request for the original recording agreement referenced in ZA-V-35-73 and ZA-UP-69-74. Determine whether it was ever actually recorded. If it wasn't, that's 50 years of non-compliance with a binding condition of approval — which raises the question of whether the current Use Permit is even in good standing.
This is the neighbors' strongest argument, and it's empirically bulletproof:
The logical conclusion: If the school cannot enforce a "pedestrian only" restriction on the Colby gate for years, despite formal complaints and Sheriff involvement, there is zero basis to believe they'll enforce it on a new Berkeley gate. The County cannot condition approval on enforcement the school has demonstrably proven incapable of providing.
Recommended action: Compile documentation of every complaint to the school, every Sheriff call, every newsletter reminder. This creates a factual record of enforcement failure. If the school's formal application claims they'll "restrict" the Berkeley gate, the response writes itself.
Anas Osman's letter (650 Berkeley) includes email correspondence from February 13, 2025, where school Director of Facilities Bailey explicitly promised:
"The landscape architect has worked diligently to preserve the neighbors' street side experience of the campus. This will include solid fencing on the perimeter with plantings on both sides of the fence to soften the experience."
Less than 16 months later, the school proposes cutting a gate into that exact perimeter. This isn't just bad faith — it's documented bad faith. While not legally binding, it damages the school's credibility with the Planning Commission and is useful evidence that the school's representations to neighbors cannot be relied upon.
Staff's own records show 23 replacement trees required from prior tree removal permits dating back to 1996, with confirmation received for only 2 trees (p.7 of the April 17, 2025 letter). The school has been removing protected trees for 30 years without replanting. This pattern is directly relevant to:
Susan Brazeal (920 Colby) makes a critical procedural point: a meaningful traffic analysis cannot be conducted during summer when school is out. Any study must observe actual AM drop-off and PM pick-up conditions during the school year. If the school files its formal application during summer with a modeled (not observed) traffic study, the data will be worthless. The County's own requirement says "traffic counts based on actual observed drop-off and pick-up conditions."
Recommended action: If the school files with a modeled-only study, submit a comment demanding observed-condition data and pointing out the County's own stated requirement.
The school proposes going from 35 to 49 on-site parking spaces (net +14). But they're adding 63 students. Even assuming some walk/bike/carpool, 14 additional spaces cannot absorb the peak surge of 63 additional families. More importantly, as Brent Brown points out, on-site parking is not the same as drop-off capacity. The circular drive on Peninsula Way handles queuing; additional parking stalls don't.
The Berkeley setback reduction (45→40 feet) means the new buildings, the tree removals, and the proposed gate are all concentrated on the exact same frontage the County documented at 14-18 feet of pavement. These should be evaluated together, not as separate line items. Multiple commenters make this point.
The school's enrollment records for the past 10 years (to establish the "original student capacity" baseline for the Class 14 threshold)
Document current conditions systematically:
Document flooding on Berkeley during first fall rains
Contact the Menlo Oaks District Association:
This is the highest-leverage legal argument — if the exemption fails, the school faces months of additional environmental review
Demand the traffic study be conducted during school year:
Request that the study scope include the Colby gate's current unauthorized use as a drop-off point
Push for binding, enforceable conditions:
Annual traffic monitoring and reporting requirement
Invoke the Castilleja precedent:
An appeal preserves CEQA challenge rights for potential litigation
Consider legal counsel:
The neighbors are in a strong position. The combination of: - Documented infrastructure deficiency (14-18 ft pavement vs. 24 ft standard) - 50 years of non-compliance with the ROW improvement condition - Empirically demonstrated enforcement failure on the Colby gate - A February 2025 written commitment that contradicts the current proposal - 30 years of non-compliance with tree replacement conditions - A CEQA exemption that may not survive scrutiny - Multiple articulate, organized neighbor comment letters - Camera-based traffic data (Brent)
...creates a formidable record. The school's application will face serious headwinds at the Planning Commission, and the CEQA exemption challenge provides a legal backstop if the political process fails.
The weakest point for the school: They cannot point to a single successful enforcement of the Colby gate's "emergency only" restriction. Any representation that the Berkeley gate will remain "pedestrian only" is directly contradicted by their own track record. This is not speculation — it's their own documented history.
The strongest move for the neighbors: Challenge the CEQA exemption. If it fails, the school faces months of additional environmental review (MND or EIR), during which all these issues get studied in detail with public comment periods. Most applicants prefer to negotiate rather than face that timeline and cost.