Status at a glance

What's holding up the rebuild permit

1. The pickup line. The City wants every waiting car on school property, not backed up onto Vulcan Avenue. The District says the small site can't fit that and no adopted rule requires it.
2. A strip of school land on Vulcan. The City requires the school to give a 10-foot strip for a wider road and sidewalk. The school board agreed to some road and sidewalk work. The District disputes that the City can require the land and has offered it only on conditions.
3. An old easement. The District wants back a strip it let the City use about ten years ago. Returning it needs a City Council vote. According to the District, the City has also told the construction team not to use or fence that area.
4. Drainage redesign. The City's drainage direction changed after the school's system was designed (the District says it wasn't told until April 2026), so its engineers are redesigning it. This one is engineering work rather than a standoff.

The public records show delays and missed signals on both sides. The details, with sources, are on the full page.

Coming up

Ways to help

Pick one. Each button opens an email, a web page or the share box; cards marked "Details coming soon" will switch on as soon as they're ready.

Share this update

Update log

Scroll sideways to see the full path →

The single most useful thing to push for: a signed "at-risk" agreement letting the contractor start on the uncontested interior of the site while the traffic, land and easement questions are argued separately. The District requested it June 10; at the July 2 City Manager meeting the City said it was "open to an at-risk agreement once legal has reviewed and all parties sign off" (per the architect's notes). No signed agreement appears in the records.

• Oct 2024DLR (District's architect) says it first contacted the City to define a review process and "the City did not provide a clear path at that time." DLR's account; no City record
• Jan 8, 2025EUSD Board approves the rebuild at a special meeting; Measure Z bond funding, about $60 million. EUSD project page; Coast News
• May 28, 2025Staff Advisory Committee meeting. City tells District: no infiltration (lined basins, pump may be needed); a traffic report "should be developed" and the plan "should show the queue length"; coastal permit required; "Public Dedications may be required," naming Union St. SAC notes
• Jul 2025City's draft "no infiltration" policy rescinded. No record of the District being told until the consultant's April 27, 2026 memo. consultant memo 4/27/26
• Oct–Nov 2025DLR asks the City about the coastal permit process; the City declines a pre-submittal meeting for lack of availability and answers by email.
• Oct 22, 2025EIR Notice of Preparation. Hydrology and land use scoped out as "no impact."
• Feb 13–Mar 30, 2026Draft EIR public review. District extends the City's deadline to Apr 17; City comments arrive Apr 23 and Apr 29 (traffic: all-way stop "not supported"; no queuing rule).
• Apr 6, 2026Full coastal permit application accepted for intake, ten months after the SAC meeting. Apr 9: City tells DLR that Board certification of the EIR on May 19 "would be infeasible based on the required CDP review and appeal periods." City timeline summary, 7/28/26
• Apr 21, 2026City engineering: "We have requested a queuing analysis for the proposed drop-off and pick-up locations" — the earliest record in the files using the words "queuing analysis." (The City later said it flagged the need in May 2025, when the SAC notes asked for a traffic report showing queue length.)
• Apr 27, 2026City's stormwater consultant: drainage study and stormwater plan "significantly incomplete"; infiltration now expected.
• May 1, 2026First review letter (V1): application incomplete. Right-of-way target stated (30 ft from centerline on Vulcan) with dedication width left blank.
• May 5, 2026Internally, the City’s planning manager rules out separating the street work: “We cannot separate the off-site improvements from the project, as they are directly tied to the overall scope of work. Doing so would result in piecemealing.” The split that follows covers demolition only — the traffic, frontage and right-of-way package stays in the rebuild permit. City internal email 5/5/26
• May 12–19, 2026The City splits the permit so demolition can go first. The City’s own timeline records that on May 12 staff “made decision to separate the Demolition CDP from the Rebuild CDP”; the approach came from the City, not from a District request. May 19: Board certifies the EIR and approves the project (Res. 18-2526); City puts the demolition-only permit proposal in writing.
• May 29, 2026Demolition permit application (CDP-009013-2026) submitted.
• Jun 3, 2026District to City on the late EIR traffic comments: reviewed and considered, no changes; "we are under no obligation to respond."
• Jun 9–12, 2026Expedite meeting. DLR requests an at-risk start (site demo Jun 17, buildings Jul 24). City planner: not until the grading permit and coastal permit are final; will check with legal.
• Mid-June 2026School closes. Construction crews ready but cannot start.
• Jun 18, 2026Traffic meeting. City cannot support the design without quantitative analysis; southbound left turn "unworkable"; floats a 2,000+ ft Vulcan queue lane; requires about 6.5 ft of right-of-way dedication (later stated as 10 ft). Two things the minutes also record: the City engineer said his concern was “a preliminary opinion not yet backed by specific data,” and that a study supporting the design “would not necessarily resolve all City concerns.” He also said that without a study he could not advise the City Council the configuration would work, and suggested District and City leadership discuss the Council’s appetite for alternatives before staff took a formal position. DLR minutes 6/18/26
• Jun 23–25, 2026Demolition permit hearing (Jun 23). Second review letter on the rebuild (Jun 25) re-attaches the April 29 traffic memo unchanged.
• Jul 2, 2026City Manager meeting. About two months already lost. City open to an at-risk agreement after legal review; District says the school "will likely not open on time." The architects ask City staff to confirm they would judge the coming traffic study fairly “regardless of outcome,” citing earlier comments that the new design would worsen queuing whatever an analysis showed and that staff feared being held responsible by the Council later; the notes record the City agreeing to do so. The notes name the City Manager, Deputy City Manager and City staff on their distribution list, though unlike the June 18 minutes — emailed to the City on June 23 and acknowledged — no transmittal of these appears in the records. Union St parking resolved with public-parking and sidewalk easements. DLR notes
• Jul 16, 2026Demolition permit approved (Notice of Decision). Same week, EUSD Board adopts Resolution 01-2627 exempting the project from City zoning (Gov. Code 53094).
• Jul 20, 2026City Engineer's Vulcan requirements: 19 ft of pavement from centerline, curb, gutter, 5-ft sidewalk, 6-ft landscape strip; possible encroachment agreement for parking in the strip.
• Jul 24, 2026Third review letter (V3). Planning has no further comments; Engineering and Traffic remain; Traffic asks for a queuing analysis and whether queues could spill onto Vulcan or Union.
• Jul 27, 2026EUSD Board workshop with attorney Terry Tao; consultants attribute the delays to City review; board "taken aback by the 11th hour changes." City staffer's notes
• Jul 28–30, 2026Board authorizes 15 ft of Vulcan pavement (not the City's 19). Garland's queuing analysis delivered to the City Jul 30.
• Aug 6, 2026City staff package a timeline for the Mayor; ask the District which zoning standards it claims exemption from, due Aug 12, for a Sept 8 hearing.
• Aug 11–12, 2026Coastal appeal period ends; demolition begins.
• Aug 18–19, 2026Revised Garland analysis; District–City meeting; state Department of Education final plan approval notes the site is 7.2 usable acres, 71% of the recommended 10.1. Tao letter
• Sep 3–4, 2026District tells families it won't reopen in August 2027. Sep 4, 7:22 pm Friday: City's redlines on the queuing study ("must be fully accommodated on-site"). District's legal letter to the City Manager and City Attorney is dated Sep 4 and transmitted Sep 8.
• Sep 8, 2026Planned Zoning Administrator hearing on the Phase 2 permit. Outcome not yet public.
• Sep 9, 2026Council tables the new Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (Item 12C, Ord. 2026-11 / Res. 2026-45) by unanimous vote and directs staff to return with revisions on Oct 14, 2026. Council asked for changes on permit streamlining, density bonus, fair-share timing and ADUs; the City recap does not mention Paul Ecke or a transition rule for pending school projects. The District attorney's letter had asked Council to defer. This item was about citywide traffic rules, not the PEC permit itself. City Council Rundown
• Sep 17, 2026District's deadline for a consolidated City response. Outcome unknown.
• Oct 14, 2026Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines due back to Council. Watch for whether a transition rule for pending school projects is added.