Town Square

Post a New Topic

Castilleja School claims Palo Alto's move to reduce proposed garage is illegal

Original post made on Jan 14, 2022

In an abrupt change of tone, Castilleja argued in a letter this week that the city's move to reduce the size of the its proposed underground garage is illegal and runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, January 14, 2022, 9:46 AM

Comments (45)

Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 14, 2022 at 10:26 am

Online Name is a registered user.

Casti's lawyer seems to have quite the track record of defending developers who have to be sued to make them honor their commitments after years of stalling and pressure on the city to start fining them until they do.


Posted by Bill Glazier
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jan 14, 2022 at 10:55 am

Bill Glazier is a registered user.

If Casti wants to get nasty, I suggest a simple way to avoid all the trouble and expense. This is a discretionary planning and zoning approval. The City should just plain deny it, and tell them clearly they need to find another campus. They have proven they do not play nice - failing to live up to their historic agreements, and now choosing a confrontational approach.

Just tell them no, and let them go. Someplace else.


Posted by Chris
a resident of University South
on Jan 14, 2022 at 11:28 am

Chris is a registered user.

Bill Glazier,

Are you a land use attorney? Given the deep pockets of Castilleja and the Palo Alto's big deficits, I don't think your strategy will fly.


Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 14, 2022 at 11:48 am

Online Name is a registered user.

What's the relationship between Casti's "deep pockets" and Palo Alto's big deficits? They don't pay taxes and so far as I can see, all Casti's done is run up PA's deficits by costing taxpayers lots of money in staff time, consultants, etc.


Posted by Old Palo Alto Resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jan 14, 2022 at 12:25 pm

Old Palo Alto Resident is a registered user.

I’m relieved to see Castilleja take a stronger stand. The town committees need to approve this much compromised plan and let all of us go on with addressing bigger issues. This school was here long before most of the houses in this “residential area” and is a treasured part of our history. Let’s get the building renovated.


Posted by Local Resident
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 14, 2022 at 12:40 pm

Local Resident is a registered user.

The core problem is Castilleja wants to add too many students. Simply capping them at 450 students would solve many of these problems.


Posted by Old Palo Alto, New Palo Alto
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jan 14, 2022 at 1:10 pm

Old Palo Alto, New Palo Alto is a registered user.

Paragraph 3 says it all. Castilleja has been through numerous revisions, reducing the garage twice, and even with approval from the ARB and the PTC, it’s never enough. The school has been working toward compromise for years, and no one seems to be meeting them halfway. There is precedent. This isn’t fair treatment. The letter seems to be an effective tool to address that issue.


Posted by cmarg
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Jan 14, 2022 at 1:16 pm

cmarg is a registered user.

Please just let Castilleja find another place! Really, getting nasty is not want we want in Palo Alto. Please planning group, deny their request and let them seek a new location like all the other local private schools have done. Enough is enough.


Posted by Roy M
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 14, 2022 at 1:30 pm

Roy M is a registered user.

I am surprised it took this long for Castilleja to do something like this since it's been clear for a while that the city only listens to a legal threat (see Foothills Park, President's Hotel, etc.). The key sentence to me is the request to "provide clear direction with minimal further requests of Staff and Castilleja so that Project review can proceed in accordance with the PTC's prior positive recommendation for approval." There is only so much moving of goalposts that anyone can take.


Posted by S. Underwood
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 14, 2022 at 2:19 pm

S. Underwood is a registered user.

Based on my reading of things there is nothing illegal here. But, supposing there were, I have a proposal on how to redress it that seems to make sense in light of this issue's history.... Here's the proposal. We let the (allegedly) illegal behavior continue for a decade, after which the city will pay $300,000. After that, everyone can call it even? What is fairness if not reciprocity?


Posted by Old Palo Alto Resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jan 14, 2022 at 2:20 pm

Old Palo Alto Resident is a registered user.

Palo Alto does not allow underground garages in Single Family Neighborhoods. The Planning Department was bending over backward to allow Castilleja to move ahead and even tried calling the underground garage as a basement. When the garage should be counted as part of the total square footage, Pat Burt was try to be nice to them and allowing them not to count the square footage if the garage was smaller. At that point, I already thought it was a mistake to allow this repeat violator of their Conditional Use Permit. Now Castilleja is still not happy and tries to bully the City into submission. So I think the best way is to go by the book without giving them any discretion by counting all the square footage. Then we will see if they can still build a garage according to the City law.


Posted by rita vrhel
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 14, 2022 at 2:58 pm

rita vrhel is a registered user.

This is a very aggressive act by a school many, usually not in the immediate neighborhood, consider a "good neighbor".

Now that the PTC composition has changed and a "ringer" is no longer on the Commission, Castilleja gets tough. Very bad optics!!!!

Inconvenient timing, since their own Parking consultant, Fehr & Peers, in their 7/23/21 Castilleja Parking Study indicated a parking garage of any size was not necessary. "All parking needs could be met by Alternative 4, the Disbursed Circulation/No Garage alternative." So much for Pat Burt trying to find an acceptable solution by "spiting the baby".

I guess Castilleja's attorney is counting on PA's City Attorney folding at the mention of any lawsuit. DON'T DO IT MOLLY! We are watching and are sick of the special treatment afforded Castilleja.

A garage never should have been approved and would not have been approved except for "fancy semantics" by Mr. Lait and Ms. French. And bullying by a PTC Commissioner.

I hope the PTC and residents will read the 7/23/21 Fehr & Peers' Report as well as Dudek's 11/17/21 Castilleja School Building Survey and Gross Floor Area Assessment. Both tell a different story than the one promoted by the pro-Castellija faction.

I applaud the residents and neighbors who, for 5 long years, have fought back against Castilleja's power, friends in high places and expansion plans.

As a Castilleja parent, I believe their expansion plans should be accurately assessed with all available information and returned to the drawing board. If Castilleja had not asked for so much, their new campus could have been completed by now. Thank you.


Posted by rita vrhel
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 14, 2022 at 3:14 pm

rita vrhel is a registered user.

S. Underwood.... very tongue in cheek email.

But it would only be fair, if during those many years of non- compliance, the City earned $12 Million dollars in some sort of fees from Castilleja equal to the estimated $12 Million dollars Castilleja earned on the extra tuition allowed by over enrollment. That equals a return on investment, the fine, of 4,500%. I do wish PA could figure out how to do this!

An amazing investment! And Castilleja can claim the "higher ground", by saying Castilleja has paid their dues...but only for 3 years of over-enrollment.

This certainly is not my definition of FAIR; rather it meets the definition of SHREWD.


Posted by mjh
a resident of College Terrace
on Jan 14, 2022 at 4:00 pm

mjh is a registered user.

Simple. Time to permanently cap their enrollment at a maximum 450 students.

Unfortunately for Casti, as they so clearly demonstrate in their lawyer's letter, this is about the bigger picture and the council setting precedents that residents in all of Palo Alto's R1 neighborhoods will have to live with in future.

Developers must be eagerly watching for precedents the city will set for Casti which they too can take advantage of in the future.


Posted by EYC
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jan 14, 2022 at 4:45 pm

EYC is a registered user.

I live two blocks from Casti. I see cars waiting in line on Bryant and Embarcadero at pick up time everyday. Given the future for Churchill crossing is up in the air now, Embarcadero St might be heavily overloaded. Casti should let go the garage building and keep the current enrollment.


Posted by Old PA Resident
a resident of Southgate
on Jan 14, 2022 at 5:45 pm

Old PA Resident is a registered user.

I'm glad to see Casti put more pressure on this ridiculous process. It seems like they've jumped thru hoops to satisfy changing objections put up by a small number of residents who likely don't want to be inconvenienced by a construction project. Casti can only increase enrollment if there's no measurable change to local street traffic, so it can't be concerns about traffic or school size - those seem like excuses to create doubt and stall. This has cost our town much money and time - but it seems like it's the fault of an unreasonable small minority that has been running the clock and running up our bills.

The school has been here for longer than all of us and is world famous, we should support to modernize so we can be proud of their campus. Wonder if Casti was a boys school if people would feel as free to criticize or put roadblocks in their way. It's like Casti is proving the whole point for why girls' schools are still needed. It's time to let them move forward with this project.


Posted by cmarg
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Jan 14, 2022 at 6:39 pm

cmarg is a registered user.

I keep saying the same thing... if any of the students are in a team sport, they HAVE to have a way to get to practice. I know a few are in rowing and getting to practice on time is critical. So, please realize that whatever is proposed is not accurate. Students who are on a sports team MUST have a way to get to practice and that is not public transport. Just look at the cars parked on the streets. Easy to move cars to a new location for the 2 hour limit. Please stop shutting your eyes to the facts.


Posted by ArtL
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 14, 2022 at 8:33 pm

ArtL is a registered user.

They have presented a sensible and reasonable plan. I think Council has been overly critical of what has been proposed because of the failure of the school to abide by previous attendance limits. It's time to let the school modernize its facilities and for the community, whose concerns have been taken into account, to move on


Posted by Old Palo Alto Resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jan 14, 2022 at 10:07 pm

Old Palo Alto Resident is a registered user.

We should all be asking why Castilleja is pushing so hard to have a garage. If they are really only want to increase the enrollment to 540, then why they are pushing so hard to build the garage first. Unless 540 is only the starting point. After they build the garage, then they will continue to push for expansion and having more students to flood the neighborhood with more traffic.
Castilleja claims to be innovative. Why can't they come up with an innovative eco-friendly solution to really fix their traffic problem instead of insisting on bringing more cars to jam up Palo Alto streets as an excuse for an underground garage. Why can't Castilleja be more like other private schools that do not allow students to drive to school. Castilleja is over 100 year old and still living in the past by insisting to allow their students to drive to school. When will Castilleja be willing to face the reality that is not a solution fo the future?


Posted by mjh
a resident of College Terrace
on Jan 15, 2022 at 5:19 am

mjh is a registered user.

“Old Palo Alto” above points out Casti has been here longer than the neighborhood homes, which appears to be being used as justification for the school’s expansion.

However, for the vast majority of those years Casti was a small boarding school with a few local day pupils with minimal neighborhood impacts. A small residential school in a residential neighborhood.

In terms of neighborhood impacts, Casti as a day school is a relatively new entity in the neighborhood. Whose reincarnation as a day school occurred only a few decades ago. With a conditional use permit, as I recall, for between 300 and 350 students. While Palo Alto has allowed Casti to grow to its current size, that does not give Casti the right as a day school in a residential neighborhood to continuously expand. However many plans they present and however many years they spend continuously asking for more.


Posted by rsmithjr
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 15, 2022 at 8:25 am

rsmithjr is a registered user.

There is a bit of history about the land that Casti wants to use for a garage. I am not sure everyone knows it.

Thirty years ago, that land was a part of Melville Street, owned by the city. Casti asked the city to gift it so that it could be used as a field, which they needed for athletics.

With few restrictions, the city gave Casti the land. As was pointed out at the time, it is very rare for cities to give away or sell roads or parts of roads since it is very hard to get them back if you need them. But Palo Alto wanted to be generous and kind.

Now, the entire focus of this contentious and divisive development is this gift from the city.

The city would do well to take a harder line for such requests in the future.


Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 15, 2022 at 8:39 am

Online Name is a registered user.

The city GAVE Casti the land, as in gave at no charge??]

How special that the city could help such a needy institution which then turned around and broke the law for many years by violating the its enrollment cap AND costing the city and neighbors a fortune in staff time, legal fees, consultants etc.

Casti's such an inspiration to us all as it teaches its girls and the community values such as gratitude, respect for the law, consideration for its neighbors, humility, fairness etc.


Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Jan 15, 2022 at 8:48 am

Annette is a registered user.

This process could have ended long ago but for the school's insistence on the garage. So stubborn. And arrogant. And contrary to the environmental goal of reducing GHG emissions. I agree with Lanferman that it is time for “clear direction with minimal further requests”. The PTC and CC should eliminate any vagueness that might exist here and simply say NO to the garage. The CC did that in 2019 when it voted unanimously to not go forward with the proposed and promised downtown garage. In her comments, former mayor Kniss apologized to the business community and noted that CC had made climate change and sustainability a top priority at their 2019 retreat, saying that "times had changed" and that "our commitment to climate change and sustainability is very real”. In the intervening 3 years, climate issues have only worsened. Losing the garage doesn’t kill the project (their own consultant concluded that the garage is not necessary) unless Castilleja chooses to let it.


Posted by rsmithjr
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 15, 2022 at 8:52 am

rsmithjr is a registered user.

@Online Name,

Yes, the city did not charge for the land or even consider such a move.


Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Jan 15, 2022 at 9:45 am

Annette is a registered user.

@smithjr: thank you for that tidbit of history. Talk about no good deed going unpunished! Here's hoping the City doesn't compound that error by approving the garage.


Posted by rita vrhel
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 15, 2022 at 10:00 am

rita vrhel is a registered user.

Thank you rsmithjr for writing about the City giving or vacating the 200 block of Melville when Castilleja asked for it. Many people do not know this and would be outraged to learn of this special treatment.

This equaled around 0.6 acres of land,. NICE GIFT to a rich non-profit! I have heard but not confirmed the land was to be left open to the public but was not with the creation of Speiker Field. Approximately 20 public parking spots were lost.

Not only that...there is more!

The City sold to Castilleja a small adjacent property for $1,500.00. I do not believe there was a open/ competitive "bidding process", as I believe, is required. AND the the city council also allowed Castilleja, if and when they purchased the homes on the 200 block of Melville, to join this property into their campus.

Under the 200 block of Melville, now part of Castilleja's campus, is the Main sewer line for many home on Melville.

This is why Castilleja requested a special ruling from the City allowing them to build part of their tunnel (from the garage to the campus) several feet under the sewer line. This "special request" has been very hush-hush. Not even a June, 2021 public records request answered my question as to if and when this request, a Utility Easement, was granted.

If granted, will the City hold Castilleja, a $123M non-profit, responsible for any construction or future damage to the sewer line or does, once again, the Palo Alto taxpayer get stuck with the bill?

So many questions! So hard to get accurate answers. This is why many of us, living in Palo Alto, do NOT consider Castilleja a good neighbor. Or trust the process to date regarding their expansion. Thank you.


Posted by Bill Bucy
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 15, 2022 at 10:10 am

Bill Bucy is a registered user.

The city budget should contain a separate line item for 'spending related to Castilleja School's request for expansion.' Better still would be a monthly Castilleja financial rundown to the council that is shared with the public. At least then the debate over this debacle could focus on a practicality rather than such arcane matters as whether the school has rights under the 14th Amendment or the difficulties the rowing team faces getting to practice on time.


Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 15, 2022 at 10:54 am

Online Name is a registered user.

Indeed, let's stop worrying about the rowing team getting to practice on time and START worrying about the tens of thousands of drivers who DAILY battle the slowdowns and gridlock on Embarcadero without making THEIR lives worse.

"The City sold to Castilleja a small adjacent property for $1,500.00. I do not believe there was a open/ competitive "bidding process", as I believe, is required. AND the the city council also allowed Castilleja, if and when they purchased the homes on the 200 block of Melville, to join this property into their campus."

Who knew there were ANY Palo Alto properties priced at $1,500.00? Silly me, I used to joke that Palo Alto properties were missing a zero vs East Coast property prices; who knew they were such a bargain.

Seriously, these giveaways and this whole costly "process" has been and continues to be outrageous and an insult to the taxpayers who have to listen to the city plead poverty and claim they're too broke to restore all the services they've cut.

I second the request for an accounting of land giveaways, wasted staff time, uncollected fines for being over enrollment, cost of consultants etc etc.

Now that we have a relatively unbiased PTC without Casti ties, let's finally just say NO.

Let's also remind the "planning" staff that 75% of Casti students drive from out of town as it diligently hones its plans to reduce OUR car trips AND restrict OUR movements to places within 15 MINUTES via bike, walking and public transit (as per their CC presentation 2 weeks ago).



Now that we have a relatively unbiased PTC without Casti ties, let's finally just say NO. Let's also remind the "planning" staff that 75% of Casti students drive from out of town as it hones its plans to reduce OUR car trips AND restrict OUR movements to places within 15 MINUTES via bike, walking and public transit (as per their CC presentation 2 weeks ago).


Posted by Old Palo Alto Resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jan 15, 2022 at 11:52 am

Old Palo Alto Resident is a registered user.

Castilleja continues to push their plan to extract tens of thousands of tons of earth to build an underground cement bunker to bring in more cars and create more congestion. It is laughable that while we are facing the reality of climate change daily, their supporters are still blindly following them by calling their plan as "sensible and reasonable". While Castilleja claims they will have a LEED certified building plan but why can't they design a truly workable NO GARAGE plan that is good for the environment by reducing their traffic impact to the city and the neighborhood?


Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Jan 15, 2022 at 12:39 pm

Annette is a registered user.

@cmarg: what point are you making? Surely it cannot be that the City should ignore inconvenient truths such as climate change and approve a plan that includes a huge garage b/c that is needed so that girls can hop in their personal vehicle and drive to rowing practice. City planners are pushing EVERYONE to drive less. Mother Nature is exhorting EVERYONE to drive less. I am not aware of an exception for Castilleja, although it appears that is precisely what they are seeking.


Posted by cmarg
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Jan 15, 2022 at 3:51 pm

cmarg is a registered user.

Annette, I am saying that Castilleja is not being 100% honest about their situation. They would do well to move to a new location and build a larger campus that supports educating girls. It is just becoming so repetitive to keep saying that there is not integrity present within the Castilleja plan; actions speak louder than words and it has been years of Castilleja saying they will abide by the rules and not following the rules. And, for whatever reason, Palo Alto Planning is not pushing back and they are not penalizing Castilleja for not following the rules.

We need less cars, we need to be in a community of honest and upright people who are aligned to have a healthy and environmentally focused city and world. Given the majority of students are outside of Palo Alto, it seems like a no-brainer to move the campus or create a second campus elsewhere. Keys School, Pinewood, and Harker all created second campuses. I cannot comprehend why this request has not been shut down from the city. So much time and energy is being spent on this request. There are many more important things we need to do as a community.


Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Jan 15, 2022 at 7:05 pm

Annette is a registered user.

@cmarg: thank you for the clarification. I think there are many reasons why this project has attracted so much attention. It is easy to imagine the traffic impacts given that the school is bordered by Embarcadero, a main thoroughfare used by many of us each day. It is also easy to appreciate the many ways an enterprise such as Castilleja impacts the neighborhood it is in. Then there's the credibility issue. And the conflict that existed during the time that former Planning Commissioner Alcheck was involved in the review of the school's plans, doing his best to bulldoze a path to approval. And the tabulation of sf error that had to be remedied. That did nothing to enhance the school’s credibility. And trying to get the garage classified as a basement. That also did nothing to enhance the school’s credibility. Then there are the many issues associated with the garage which is an affront to the City’s sustainability goals. No one disagrees that the school does a great job of educating young women (I was glad to have the opportunity to send my daughter there) but that does not convey a green light for an over-reaching expansion plan.


Posted by PatMarkevitch
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 15, 2022 at 8:02 pm

PatMarkevitch is a registered user.

Rowing teams generally will practice very early in the morning (before school hours) when the water is calm.


Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Jan 16, 2022 at 8:00 am

Annette is a registered user.

The Kol Emeth project got underway in 2018, prior to City Council prioritizing climate change and sustainability.

As Kniss said in February 2019 priot to voting against the promised downtown garage, the times have changed. During the time since the Kol Emeth garage was approved we have seen our sky turned orange and black for days from distant wildfires. That was 2020 and since then there has been a steady stream of frighteningly disruptive weather disasters that have taken lives. And we are told this will continue. Timing matters. A more reasonable Castilleja expansion plan might well have been approved and possibly even built by now. Given what Castilleja’s 5 Cs stand for (courage, conscience, courtesy, charity, and character) it is disappointing that the school has dug in its heels over this and not settled on a way to modernize and expand without the garage.


Posted by Longtime PA res
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jan 16, 2022 at 10:06 am

Longtime PA res is a registered user.

This fact that a garage has even been considered at all when residents are not allowed underground garages is a sticking point in Castilleja’s already over reaching and disruptive plans within the neighborhood. [Portion removed.] All I can conclude is that Castilleja is really getting desperate… doing a 1,2, 3 punch by trying to bully the city with its means to get approval.
1) Hiring a lawyer to argue that reducing the garage size is illegal when neighbors have been prohibited to building them for years!
2) Pressuring the principal of the Fehr and Peers, a traffic consultant to write a local paper to defend a position that a very astute citizen pointed out about having enough parking spaces without a garage. Never have I seen a professional have to write a letter to the editor in the Palo Alto weekly to explain a position in their client’s report.
3) And running a full page ad with 6 quotes from school supporters to ask residents to support this plan.
I wish that immediate neighbors could afford the big money that Castilleja's multi-million endowment is throwing into this [portion removed.]

For all of the Castilleja supporters accusations that the goal posts were moved, the school’s narrative has not changed. In fact this long drawn out affair is of Castilleja’s own doing.  Spending many years rebranding its expansion plans to a “modernization” plan while requesting a student enrollment increase, touting its LEED building while insisting on a polluting, environmentally hazardous garage, and now this last desperate [portion removed] tactic to get their plans approved among other things have all served to delay the process.


Posted by cmarg
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Jan 16, 2022 at 10:41 am

cmarg is a registered user.

PatMarkevitch, my including rowing as a team sport was just an example. In my experience, there are late afternoon rowing practices, especially for 1st year rowers. I also realize other team sports practice in late afternoon. My point is that several team sports practice in late afternoon and people have other afternoon commitments; a school indicating that everyone or the majority will take public transit is not a realistic. Again, it is best to be upfront about the situation. Just hoping we can get to being honest and think of others versus having self interests.


Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 16, 2022 at 11:33 am

Online Name is a registered user.

@Annette, excellent posts about Casti's values and about former Planning Commissioner Alcheck's professional/legal conflicts. Given the way he monopolized meetings, prolonging them until people left and his long harangue from the podium at a 90-yr-old woman that prompted protests from the audience, he's hardly an embodiment of Casti's professed values.

The same "logic" about calling a garage a basement smacks of their similar claim that trees are protected except for when they conveniently aren't.

@cmarg, why is it unrealistic for Casti girls to take public transit when the city's Climate Action Plan details who the city wants us to restrict our lives to where we can get to via foot, public transit and bike? Why are they entitled to exceptions and the rest of us who pay PA taxes aren't? Are they going to restrict commuters to 15 minutes from where they live?


Posted by RDR
a resident of another community
on Jan 16, 2022 at 1:56 pm

RDR is a registered user.

So people should notice that the argument put forth by Castilleja makes sense. Why on earth would the city try to limit the size of underground parking when they already limit the school enrollment? Basically the city is just trying to require the the school have a lot of cars sitting around at ground level where they can be seen. Doesn't make much sense no matter how you slice it.

The constitution says government has to be fair and its regulations must not deprive citizens of their property rights, no matter what demands are made by the neighbors. When they put underground parking into the general plan, it has to apply to everyone!


Posted by mjh
a resident of College Terrace
on Jan 16, 2022 at 2:46 pm

mjh is a registered user.

How interesting that the constitution says government has to be fair and must not deprive citizens of their property rights. If we are to be fair and Casti has to abide by the same rules as the rest of us, in that location they aren’t allowed to do much, if anything, that they want to do.








Posted by A Person
a resident of Southgate
on Jan 17, 2022 at 9:26 pm

A Person is a registered user.

@rsmithjr, give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile.


Posted by community member
a resident of University South
on Jan 17, 2022 at 10:49 pm

community member is a registered user.

Why are they taking so much time and expense to expand this site? One answer is they have so much money, its not a problem for them. Developers think long-term and in the long term this is a money-making plan. High paying students with rich parents, renting the venue for events, etc.

Michael Alcheck’s involvement gets deeper and deeper. Now his former attorney, Lanferman, is working for Castilleja. Lanferman as Alcheck’s attorney, succeeded in redefining the zoning on Alcheck’s Phillips Road property which subsequently sold for Eight Million$ (4/30/18).

Now that Alcheck is off the Planning Commission he could directly work for Castilleja. There’s gold in them there hills.

Alheck’s [portion removed] family has made Huge donations, for years, to this school. And two of the family’s children have attended Castilleja.

[Portion removed.]

Can’t help wondering what other deals and manipulations Alcheck has in mind. The City gave Casti the land? The foul odor emanating from this development is already quite strong.


Posted by EYC
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jan 18, 2022 at 11:47 am

EYC is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


Posted by rita vrhel
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 19, 2022 at 12:02 pm

rita vrhel is a registered user.

I think what is "illegal" is Dudek's omission to include a no parking garage alternative in their original Draft Environment Impact Report (DEIR)!

Even when Bobby Riggs and other PTC Commissioners asked Staff to return with a NO GARAGE ALTERNATIVE, Staff did not.

Any DEIR is required to include ALL reasonable alternatives. Dudek and Staff did not. Guess the garage was a "DONE DEAL" from before the start.

In his 1/7 letter to the PA Weekly, Mr. Robert Eckols, Principal, Fehr & Peers, thanked me for pointing out a typographic error in their 7/23/21 Castilleja Parking Study.

He indicated Alternative 4 should have stated Distributed Circulation/ Reduced Garage Alternative instead of Alternative 4- Distributed Circulation/NO Garage Alternative.

Mr. Eckols further states "the analysis provided by Fehr & Peers' report was focused not on whether a garage was appropriate, but on whether a reduction in the number of parking spaces was appropriate."

It would have been interesting had a NO GARAGE ALTERNATIVE as requested, but never provided,would have offered Fehr & Peers the opportunity to select that Alternative.

If you actually read their report they identify "89 onsite vehicle parking spots and 54 spaces located on the three roadways segments on the school frontage." This totals 143 parking spaces, 39 more than the report listed "104 parking spaces would be appropriate for an enrollment of 540 students."

The report also identifies another 276 non- frontage spaces, street by street in nearby area.

The report refers to the Staff, Senior and Admin/Visitor parking lots and states "across these three lots, on average, the on-site parking spots are approximately 80 percent occupied and, therefore, on an average day it is easy to find parking at the school."

So I think while there was a "typographical error" in fact, this error makes perfect sense.

PTC and CC: please read this report carefully. Thank you.


Posted by rita vrhel
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 19, 2022 at 12:19 pm

rita vrhel is a registered user.

my error: Billy Riggs not Bobby. My apologies to Mr. Billy Riggs.


Posted by Hulkamania
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 20, 2022 at 7:19 am

Hulkamania is a registered user.

Win, lose or draw, Lanferman has found a pot of gold in the City.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

We need stable, climate-forward land use policies
By Sherry Listgarten | 4 comments | 4,228 views

Long-awaited Eataly Silicon Valley finally has its opening date
By The Peninsula Foodist | 1 comment | 3,281 views

Don't Wait Till Your Child is 42 to Say "I'm Proud of You."
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 996 views